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.

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.