Coronary lithotripsy for the treatment of underexpanded stents: the international & multicentre CRUNCH registry

Coronary intravascular lithotripsy for severe coronary artery calcification: The Disrupt CAD I-IV trials

Coronary artery calcification (CAC) severity is associated with increased vessel inflammation, atherosclerosis, stent failure, and risk of percutaneous coronary intervention-related complications. Current modalities for CAC modification include atherectomy techniques (rotational, orbital, and laser) and balloon modification (cutting and scoring). However, these methods are limited by their risk of slow flow/no reflow, coronary dissection, perforation, and myocardial infarction. Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) emits high-energy sonic waves that induce calcium fractures within a target lesion to improve vessel compliance for stent placement. Low rates of major cardiac adverse events (MACE) and high rates of procedural and angiographic success were observed with IVL in the Disrupt CAD I-IV trials. Optical coherence tomography sub-studies identified calcium fracture as the likely etiology of improved vessel compliance and increased luminal diameter post-IVL. Rates of MACE, procedural, and angiographic success were consistent across the Disrupt CAD trials, suggesting IVL is less operator-dependent compared to other calcium-modifying techniques. Coronary IVL offers interventional cardiologists a safe and effective method of severe CAC modification, while providing reproducible outcomes.

Comparison of long-term outcome in patients with in-stent restenosis treated with intravascular lithotripsy or with modified balloon angioplasty

BACKGROUND

Modified balloon angioplasty (MB) using a cutting-/scoring balloon or intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) is used in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR). However, IVL is an off-label use in this setting. The aim of this subgroup analysis of an all-comers registry was to compare IVL to MB angioplasty in patients with ISR.

METHODS

The subgroup (n = 117) included all patients with an ISR treated by MB or IVL between 2019 and 2021. Primary endpoint was strategy success (< 20% residual stenosis). The secondary endpoint was cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and target lesion failure/revascularization (TVR). Quantitative coronary angiography was performed in all patients.

RESULTS

A total of n = 36 patients were treated by IVL and n = 81 patients by MB. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the groups. The primary endpoint was reached in 99 patients (84.6%). Patients in the IVL group had less residual stenosis (2.8% vs. 21.0%; p = 0.012). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that IVL had a significant positive effect on reaching the primary end point (Estimate 2.857; standard error (SE) 1.166; p = 0.014). During the follow-up period (450 days) there were no significant differences in rates of cardiac death (IVL n = 2 (1.7%) vs. MB n = 3 (2.6%); p = 0.643), AMI (IVL n = 2 (1.7%) vs. MB n = 4 (3.4%); p = 0.999) and TVR (IVL n = 5 (4.3%) vs. MB n = 14 (12%); p = 0.851).

CONCLUSION

IVL results in a significantly lower rate of residual stenosis than MB in patients with ISR. During the long-term follow-up, no differences in rates of cardiac death, AMI or TVR were observed.

Procedural and clinical impact of intravascular lithotripsy for the treatment of peri-stent calcification

BACKGROUND

Use of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) for treating peri-stent calcification is increasing. However, this indication remains 'off-label'. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and clinical outcomes of in-stent IVL.

METHODS

Patients from five European centers who underwent in-stent IVL were included between 2019 and 2023. Demographic, clinical, procedural and follow-up data were collected from electronic hospital records. Angiographic and intracoronary imaging (ICI) data were analyzed in a centralized core-laboratory.

RESULTS

Of 101 patients (71.2 ± 9.2 years), 56(55 %) received in-stent IVL for late stent failure (median 109 days post-PCI) due to calcific neoatherosclerosis or extra-stent calcification(late-IVL), while 45(45 %) underwent bail-out IVL due to stent infraexpasion (immediate-IVL). Both late-IVL and immediate-IVL significantly improved angiographic %diameter stenosis (73.7[59.6-89.8]% to 16.4 [10.4-26.9]%;p < 0.0001 and 28.6[22.5-43.3]% to 14.1[10.3-29.4]%;p < 0.0001, and minimum lumen area (MLA) (3.4 ± 1.2 to 8.6 ± 2.5 mm2;p < 0.002 and 5.4 ± 1.9 to 7.3 ± 1.9;p < 0.0001).Device(98 %) and procedural success(80 %) were high. MACE rates in-hospital (2 %), 30-days (3 %),6-months(5 %) and 1-year(7 %) were low and comparable in both groups. Acute diameter gain was lower in immediate-IVL (2.1 ± 0.7 mm vs. 0.5 ± 0.4 mm;p < 0.0001). This, however, was explained by significant differences in pre-IVL angiographic and ICI parameters (%diameter stenosis 73.7[59.6-89.8] vs. 28.6[22.5-43.3]%; p < 0.0001 and MLA (3.4 ± 1.2 vs 5.4 ± 1.9 mm2; p < 0.0001), whereas post-IVL percentage diameter stenosis (16.4(10.4-26.9) vs. 14.1(10.3-29.4);p = 0.914) and MLA (8.6 ± 2.5vs. 7.4 ± 1.9 mm2;p = 0.064) in late- and immediate-IVL were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

IVL in-stent due to peri-stent calcification is an effective strategy, both late and immediately after stent implantation. Overall, MACE rates at short- and mid-term were low and comparable in both groups, although clinical findings should be taken with caution.

Coronary calcifications, the Achilles heel in coronary interventions

Percutaneous coronary intervention in severely calcified coronaries has been associated with higher rates of procedural complications, including myocardial infarction and death in addition to increased frequency of coronary revascularization on an intermediate and long-term basis. The SYNTAX score, which is designed to assess the complexity of coronary artery disease and aids in choosing a revascularization method, allocates two points per lesion when there is heavy calcification present on fluoroscopy. With the advent of novel multimodality imaging technologies, the detection and evaluation of coronary calcifications improved significantly over the last decade. Several tools are now available for modifying calcified lesions including different types of dedicated balloons and atherectomy devices, which may create some degree of confusion regarding the suitable application of each instrument. The aim of this review is to cover this vital topic from different aspects. First, we tried to provide an overview on the pathophysiology and types of coronary calcification and its risk factors. Then, we outlined the available imaging modalities for the evaluation of calcified coronary lesions, highlighting the points of strength and weakness of each of them. A comprehensive discussion of calcium-modifying techniques was elaborated, summarizing their mechanism of action, pros and cons, and possible complications. Finally, an integrated algorithm was proposed for the best management of calcified coronary lesions.

The Significance of Coronary Artery Calcification for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

The prevalence of calcium deposits in coronary arteries grows with age. Risk factors include, e.g., diabetes and chronic kidney disease. There are several underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of calcium deposition. Severe calcification increases the complexity of percutaneous coronary interventions. Invasive techniques to modify the calcified atherosclerotic plaque before stenting have been developed over the last years. They include balloon- and non-balloon-based techniques. Rotational atherectomy has been the most common technique to treat calcified lesions but new techniques are emerging (orbital atherectomy, intravascular lithotripsy, laser atherectomy). The use of intravascular imaging (intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography) is especially important during the procedures in order to choose the optimal strategy and to assess the final effect of the procedure. This review provides an overview of the role of coronary calcification for percutaneous coronary interventions.

Review of intravascular lithotripsy for treating coronary, peripheral artery, and valve calcifications

Management of intracoronary calcium (ICC) continues to be a challenge for interventional cardiologists. There have been significant advances in calcium treatment devices. However, there still exists a knowledge gap regarding which devices to choose for the treatment of ICC. The purpose of this manuscript is to review the principles of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) and clinical data. The technique of IVL will then be compared to alternative calcium treatment devices. Clinical data will be reviewed concerning the treatment of coronary, peripheral artery and valvular calcifications. Controversies to be discussed include how to incorporate IVL into your practice, what is the best approach for treating calcium subtypes, how to approach under-expanded stents, what is the ideal technique for performing IVL, how safe is IVL, whether imaging adds value when performing IVL, and how IVL fits into a treatment program for peripheral arteries and calcified valves.

Clinical outcomes of coronary intravascular lithotripsy in patients with stent failure (COIL registry)

BACKGROUND

Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) has been demonstrated to be an effective treatment of calcified de novo coronary lesions. Safety data on the use of IVL within stented segments are lacking. We sought to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and long-term outcomes of IVL in patients with stent failure.

METHODS

This was a retrospective multi-centre registry that included consecutive patients with stent failure who had undergone IVL treatment. The primary efficacy endpoint was procedural success defined as residual stenosis <30% (determined by quantitative coronary angiography analysis) in patients who survived hospital admission without in-hospital adverse events. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were defined as the composite endpoints of cardiovascular death, spontaneous myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation at one-year follow up.

RESULTS

102 patients were included in this study. Mean age was 73 ± 9 years and 81% were male. The duration from previous stent implantation and IVL treatment was 24 (interquartile range 7-76) months, of which 10.8% received IVL for acute under-expanded stent. IVL treatment allowed significant improvement in both minimal lumen diameter (1.14 ± 0.60 to 2.53 ± 0.59, P < 0.001) and degree of stenosis (66.8 ± 19.9 to 20.3 ± 11.3%, P < 0.001). The rate of procedural success was 78.4% (80/102 of patients). The one-year MACE was 15.7%. Ostial disease (HR 5.16; 95% CI 1.19 to 22.33; P = 0.028) and lesion length (HR 1.05; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.10; P = 0.010) were independently associated with one-year MACE.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with stent failure, IVL is a safe and feasible treatment for this high-risk group.

Coronary laser with simultaneous contrast injection for the treatment of stent underexpansion

BACKGROUND

Stent underexpansion is a challenge in interventional cardiology. Some off-label treatments, such as rotational atherectomy, intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) and coronary lasing, have been used to overcome the problem. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of coronary laser atherectomy with simultaneous contrast injection and subsequent balloon dilation to optimize stent expansion.

METHODS

Coronary laser atherectomy with simultaneous contrast injection was used. After lasing, non-compliant balloon dilation at high pressure was performed to overcome the underexpanded point. The average increase in the minimum stent area (MSA) was measured by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), and any complication related to the technique was evaluated. Additionally, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), consisting of death from any cause, new myocardial infarction (MI) and target lesion revascularization (TLR), were scrutinized in a long-term follow-up.

RESULTS

Sixteen underexpanded stents were treated with laser between August 2017 and November 2022. In all cases but one, IVUS was used to evaluate the MSA before and after lasing. The MSA showed an average increase of 2.34 ± 1.57 mm² (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.47-3.21; p < 0.001) after laser application and balloon inflation. No complication related to the technique was detected. During a follow-up period of a median (interquartile range) of 457 (50-973) days, the combined MACE assessed by Kaplan-Meier estimator showed an event-free rate of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.59-1).

CONCLUSIONS

Coronary laser with simultaneous contrast injection is a safe method to optimize a stent underexpansion, with an acceptable event-free rate in long-term follow-up.

Rotational Atherectomy Versus Intravascular Lithotripsy for Calcified In-Stent Restenosis: A Single-Center Study With 1-Year Follow-Up

Although rotational atherectomy (RA) and intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) have been proved to be effective for calcified de novo coronary lesions, their use in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) is still controversial. No comparison of these techniques in patients with ISR has been published so far. We sought to evaluate safety and feasibility of RA and IVL in patients with calcified ISR. Furthermore, we aimed to compare in-hospital and 1-year clinical outcomes between both groups. This is a retrospective single-center study evaluating patients with calcified ISR treated with RA (between 2012 and 2021) and IVL (between 2019 and 2021). Inhospital and 1-year clinical outcomes were compared between IVL and RA patients. In total, 28 patients with ISR who underwent RA were compared with 24 ISR subjects after IVL. The procedural success rate was 100% in both the groups. Quantitative coronary analysis demonstrated a similar degree of stenosis prior (66.4 ± 11.4 vs 68.8 ± 19.7, p = nonsignificant [NS]), and after the procedure (21.5 ± 20.5 vs 22.8 ± 12.1, p = NS) with no difference in acute luminal gain (1.34 ± 0.60 vs 1.38 ± 0.59, p = NS). There was one in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular event in the RA group. At 1-year follow-up, no difference was observed with respect to major adverse cardiovascular event rate (14.3% vs 16.7%, p = NS) and target vessel revascularization (7.1% vs 12.5%, p = NS). In conclusion, RA and IVL are safe and feasible techniques for calcified ISR yielding comparable results at 1-year follow-up. Further clinical studies are warranted to confirm our findings and shed more light on patient and lesion characteristics associated with the best outcomes.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Including 354 Patients from 13 Studies of Intravascular Lithotripsy for the Treatment of Underexpanded Coronary Stents

Calcified coronary plaque (CCP) represents a challenging scenario for interventional cardiologists. Stent underexpansion (SU), often associated with CCP, can predispose to stent thrombosis and in-stent restenosis. To date, SU with heavily CCP can be addressed using very high-/high-pressure noncompliant balloons, off-label rotational atherectomy/orbital atherectomy, excimer laser atherectomy, and intravascular lithotripsy (IVL). In this meta-analysis, we investigated the success rate of IVL for the treatment of SU because of CCP. Studies and case-based experiences reporting on the use of IVL strategy for treatment of SU were included. The primary end point was IVL strategy success, defined as the adequate expansion of the underexpanded stent. A metanalysis was performed for the main focuses to calculate the proportions of procedural success rates with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Random-effects models weighted by inverse variance were used because of clinical heterogeneity. This meta-analysis included 13 studies with 354 patients. The mean age was 71.3 years (95% CI 64.9 to 73.1), and 77% (95% CI 71.2% to 82.4%) were male. The mean follow-up time was 2.6 months (95% CI 1 to 15.3). Strategy success was seen in 88.7% (95% CI 82.3 to 95.1) of patients. The mean minimal stent area was reported in 6 studies, the pre-IVL value was 3.4 mm2 (95% CI 3 to 3.8), and the post-IVL value was 6.9 mm2 (95% CI 6.5 to 7.4). The mean diameter stenosis (percentage) was reported in 7 studies, the pre-IVL value was 69.4% (95% CI 60.7 to 78.2), and the post-IVL value was 14.6% (95% CI 11.1 to 18). The rate of intraprocedural complications was 1.6% (95% CI 0.3 to 2.9). In conclusion, the "stent-through" IVL plaque modification technique is a safe tool to treat SU caused by CCP, with a high success rate and a very low incidence of complications.

Shock and Awe: Successful Revascularization with Intravascular Lithotripsy in Recurrent ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Secondary to Stent Under-Expansion

We report a case of recurrent ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) due to a previously implanted under-expanded stent with in-stent thrombosis refractory to traditional interventional techniques. We underscore the utility of bail-out shockwave intravascular lithotripsy to tackle previously under-expanded stents in this acute setting.

Combination of Laser Atherectomy and Super High-pressure Non-compliant Balloon to Treat Stent Under-expansion in Cases of Failed Interventional Options

Patients with calcified, fibrotic native coronary vessels with prior suboptimal stenting outcomes are at major risk of stent thrombosis and could face serious consequences if untreated. In cases of multiple layers of under-expanded stents, the risk is multiplied. If conventional balloon post-dilatation is unsuccessful after stent implantation without proper lesion preparation, few interventional options remain. The authors report on a patient with prior numerous right coronary unsuccessful coronary interventions resulting in partially crushed multiple layers of stent material with critical lumen narrowing caused by stent under-expansion. Balloon angioplasty and stent rotational atherectomy (ROTA) had been attempted to overcome stent under-expansion but were unsuccessful. The authors investigated a new combination therapy of laser atherectomy (ELCA) and super high-pressure balloon (OPN non-compliant balloon) to treat single or multiple layers of stent with severe under-expansion due to fibrotic, calcified tissue surrounding the under-expanded stent structure.

The Role of Intracoronary Imaging for the Management of Calcified Lesions

Interventional cardiologists in everyday practice are often confronted with calcified coronary lesions indicated for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). PTCA of calcified lesions is associated with diverse technical challenges resulting in suboptimal coronary stenting and adverse long-term clinical outcomes. Angiography itself offers limited information regarding coronary calcification, and the adjuvant use of intracoronary imaging such as intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) can guide the treatment of calcified coronary lesions, optimizing the different stages of the procedure. This review offers a description of why, when, and how to use intracoronary imaging for PTCA of calcified coronary lesions in order to obtain the most favorable results. We used the PubMed and Google Scholar databases to search for relevant articles. Keywords were calcified coronary lesions, intracoronary imaging, IVUS, OCT, coronary calcium modification techniques, PTCA, and artificial intelligence in intracoronary imaging. A total of 192 articles were identified. Ninety-one were excluded because of repetitive or non-important information.

Prevalence, Management and Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Coronary In-Stent Restenosis: Insights From the France PCI Registry

BACKGROUND

Despite the evolution of stent technology, there is a non-negligible risk of in-stent restenosis (ISR) after Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Large-scale registry data on the prevalence and clinical management of ISR is lacking.

METHODS

The aim was to describe the epidemiology and management of patients with ≥1 ISR lesions treated with PCI (ISR PCI). Data on characteristics, management and clinical outcomes were analyzed for patients undergoing ISR PCI in the France-PCI all-comers registry.

RESULTS

Between January 2014 and December 2018, 31,892 lesions were treated in 22,592 patients, 7.3 % of whom underwent ISR PCI. Patients undergoing ISR PCI were older (68.5 vs 67.8; p < 0.001), and more likely to have diabetes (32.7 % vs 25.4 %, p < 0.001), chronic coronary syndrome or multivessel disease. ISR PCI concerned drug eluting stents (DES) ISR in 48.8 % of cases. Patients with ISR lesions were more frequently treated with DES than drug eluting balloon or balloon angioplasty (74.2 %, 11.6 % and 12.9 %, respectively). Intravascular imaging was rarely used. At 1 year, patients with ISR had higher target lesion revascularization rates (4.3 % vs. 1.6 %; HR 2.24 [1.64-3.06]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large all-comers registry, ISR PCI was not infrequent and associated with worse prognosis than non-ISR PCI. Further studies and technical improvements are warranted to improve the outcomes of ISR PCI.

Comparison of long-term outcome in patients with calcified stenosis treated with intravascular lithotripsy or with modified balloon angioplasty: a propensity score-adjusted study

Background

The aim of this two-center, all-comers registry was to compare the effectiveness and safety of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) to that of modified balloon angioplasty (MB). MB angioplasty using a cutting or scoring balloon is commonly used in patients with calcified coronary arteries. IVL is a new technology for lesion preparation. This is the first study to compare MB with IVL.

Methods

The cohort included all patients treated by MB angioplasty or IVL between 2019 and 2021. The primary endpoint was strategy success (<20% residual stenosis). The secondary endpoint was long-term safety outcomes [cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), target lesion failure/revascularization (TVR)]. Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) was performed in all patients. Primary and secondary endpoints were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) for treatment effect estimation.

Results

A total of n = 86 patients were treated by IVL and n = 92 patients by MB angioplasty. The primary endpoint was reached in 152 patients (85.4%). Patients in the IVL group had less residual stenosis (5.8% vs. 22.8%; p = 0.001) in QCA. Weighted multivariable regression analysis revealed that IVL had a significant positive effect on reaching the primary endpoint of strategy success [odds ratio (OR) 24.58; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 7.40-101.86; p = 0.001]. In addition, severe calcification was shown to result in a lower probability of achieving the primary endpoint (OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.02-0.24; p = 0.001). During the follow-up period (450 days) there was no difference in cardiovascular mortality rate [IVL (n = 5) 2.8% vs. MB (n = 3) 1.7%; p = 0.129]. Patients with unstable angina at the time of the index procedure had the highest probability of cardiovascular death [hazard ratio (HR) 7.136; 95% CI 1.248-40.802; p = 0.027]. No differences were found in long-term rates of AMI (IVL 1.7% vs. MB 2.8%; p = 0.399; IVL HR 2.73; 95% CI 0.4-17.0; p = 0.281) or TVR (IVL 5.6% vs. MB 9%; p = 0.186; IVL HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.277-2.166; p = 0.626).

Conclusion

IVL leads to a significantly better angiographic intervention outcome compared to MB angioplasty in our cohort. During long-term follow-up, no differences in cardiovascular mortality, rate of acute myocardial infarction, or target lesion failure/revascularization were observed.

Coronary Lithotripsy as Elective or Bail-Out Strategy After Rotational Atherectomy in the Rota-Shock Registry

Debulking lesions with severe coronary artery calcification (CAC) is highly recommended to obtain good procedural and long-term success. Utilization and performance of coronary intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) after rotational atherectomy (RA) has not been thoroughly studied. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IVL with the Shockwave Coronary Rx Lithotripsy System in lesions with severe CAC as elective or bail-out strategy after RA. This observational, prospective, single-arm, multicenter, international, open-label Rota-Shock registry included patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease and lesions with severe CAC treated by percutaneous coronary intervention, including lesion preparation with RA and IVL, at 23 high-volume centers. Primary efficacy end point was procedural success, defined as final diameter stenosis <30% by quantitative coronary angiography. Primary safety end point was freedom from serious angiographic complications, which included >National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute type B dissection, perforation, abrupt closure, slow or no flow, final thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow <3, and acute thrombosis. A total of 160 patients were enrolled between June 2020 and June 2022. The primary efficacy end point was observed in 155 patients (96.9%). The primary safety end point occurred in 145 cases (90.6%). Dissections >National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute type B occurred in 3 patients (1.9%), whereas slow or no flow occurred in 8 (5.0%), final thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow <3 in 3 (1.9%), and perforation in 4 patients (2.5%). Free from inhospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, cerebrovascular accident, definite/probable stent thrombosis, and major bleeding, occurred in 158 patients (98.7%). In conclusion, IVL after RA in lesions with severe CAC was effective and safe, with a very low incidence of complications as either elective or bail-out strategy.

Intravascular Lithotripsy for Acute Stent Under-Expansion and In-Stent Restenosis: A Case Series

Coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) has an incidence of about 10% of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) performed in the United States. Traditional management strategies for ISR include balloon angioplasty with non-compliant or use of cutting/scoring balloons or atheroablative therapies (like laser and rotational atherectomy), all of which are inherently limited in their ability to treat stent under-expansion or calcification around the stent. Shockwave intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) has recently demonstrated safe and efficacious treatment of severely calcified coronary stenoses with reported cases of treating ISR as an off-label use. In this case series, we describe the successful use of IVL for 6 cases of ISR and 1 case of stent under-expansion using 40-80 IVL pulses per lesion. Angiographic success was obtained in all seven patients, and there were no intra-procedural complications or adverse cardiac events at a mean follow-up of 200 days. Our report indicates that IVL can be safely and effectively used to treat ISR and stent under-expansion.

Novel application of intravascular lithotripsy in stent under-expansion: A single-center experience

INTRODUCTION

Stent under-expansion due to calcification is associated with a less durable result. The development of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) has provided clinicians with a readily available, simple-to-use treatment option for coronary calcification, but the use of IVL within a previously stented segment is currently off-license. There are, however, developing data suggesting that the use of IVL can be an effective treatment option for patients with calcific stent under-expansion.

METHOD

This was a single-center study of all patients treated with IVL for calcific stent under-expansion between January 2019 and June 2021. The impact of IVL on quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) stenosis and on the minimal stent area (MSA) derived from intracoronary imaging were recorded. The presence of periprocedural complications and adverse cardiovascular events was obtained from the clinical record during the study timeframe.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients underwent IVL for calcific stent under-expansion during the study time frame with one patient treated with more than one lesion in the same session. In all lesions, there was an improvement in the QCA stenosis with 37 (92.5%) having a residual stenosis of ≤30%. The mean QCA stenosis pre-IVL was 68 ± 21% and following IVL the mean QCA was 18 ± 9% (p < 0.001). In all lesions, there was an improvement in the MSA, with 26 (92.9%) achieving an MSA of more than 4.5 mm2. The mean MSA pre-IVL was 3.88 ± 1.51 mm2 and following IVL the mean MSA was 7.41 ± 2.34 mm2 (p < 0.001). There were no major procedural complications. Over a mean follow-up of 506 ± 277 days, one patient died from ventricular arrhythmia but there were no other major adverse cardiovascular events.

CONCLUSION

This single-center study demonstrates that IVL is a safe and effective treatment for calcific stent under-expansion with good medium-term results.

Shockwaves delivery for aortic valve therapy-Realistic perspective for clinical translation?

Calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD) is the most frequent valvular heart disorder, and the one with the highest impact and burden in the elderly population. While the quality and standardization of the current aortic valve replacements has reached unprecedented levels with the commercialization of minimally-invasive implants and the design of procedures for valve repair, the need of supplementary therapies able to block or retard the course of the pathology before patients need the intervention is still awaited. In this contribution, we will discuss the emerging opportunity to set up devices to mechanically rupture the calcium deposits accumulating in the aortic valve and restore, at least in part, the pliability and the mechanical function of the calcified leaflets. Starting from the evidences gained by mechanical decalcification of coronary arteries in interventional cardiology procedures, a practice already in the clinical setting, we will discuss the advantages and the potential drawbacks of valve lithotripsy devices and their potential applicability in the clinical scenario.