ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) showed to be effective in dilating heavily calcified de novo coronary lesions but little is known about its performance in under-expanded stents management. Aim of this study was to assess the feasibility, effectiveness and safety of IVL for the treatment of stent underexpansion refractory to balloon dilatation. METHODS: A multicentre, retrospective cohort analysis was performed in patients undergoing IVL to treat under-expanded stents following non-compliant balloon expansion failure. Primary endpoint was successful IVL dilatation defined as IVL balloon delivery and application at the target site followed by an increase of at least 1 mm2 in minimal stent cross-sectional area (MSA) on intracoronary imaging or an increase of at least 20% in minimal stent diameter (MSD) by quantitative coronary analysis (QCA). RESULTS: Thirty-nine under-expanded stents (34 patients) were included. Two cases (5.1%) of multiple stent layers and one (2.5%) acutely under-expanded stent were treated. The median IVL balloon diameter was 3.1 mm (IQR: 2.5-3.5 mm) while the number of pulses emitted was 56.7 (IQR: 30-80). IVL was successful in 34 cases (87.1%), with significant improvement in MSD (post: 3.23 mm [IQR: 3-3.5 mm] vs. pre: 0.81 mm [IQR: 0.35-1.2], p < 0.00001) and MSA (post: 7.61mm2 [IQR: 6.43-7.79mm2] vs. pre: 3.35 [IQR: 2.8-4 mm2], p < 0.00001). Non-fatal peri-procedural ST-elevation myocardial infarction occurred in one case (2.5%) due to IVL balloon rupture. No cardiac death, target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis occurred in-hospital and at 30-day follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Bailout IVL was feasible, efficacious and safe to improve refractory stent under-expansion.
Subject(s)
Lithotripsy , Stents , Vascular Calcification , Coronary Angiography , Humans , Registries , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Vascular Calcification/therapyABSTRACT
AIM: To assess the "real world" clinical outcome of patients with bifurcated lesions undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with implantation of second and third generations of zotarolimus-eluting stent. METHODS AND RESULTS: Nine Italian centres participated in a prospective multicentre clinical project evaluating the outcome of patients receiving zotarolimus-eluting Resolute stent and Resolute Integrity stents. Patients with bifurcated lesions entered this evaluation. Clinical characteristics and angiographic and procedural details were prospectively recorded. Clinical outcome was prospectively assessed to evaluate the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). A total of 577 patients were enrolled. The target lesion was distal left main in 11.1% and left anterior descending artery in 52.8%, and 30.3% of lesions were Medina 1,1,1. At a mean follow-up time of 27.0 ± 13.5 months, the survival free from MACE was 91.8%. Survival free from MACE was similar in patients grouped according to different bifurcated lesion complexity. On the contrary, patients receiving a single stent had better survival free from MACE as compared with those with double stent (P = 0.005). At multivariable analysis, double stenting (but not bifurcated lesion complexity) was found to be a significant predictor of MACE (hazard ratio, 2.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-4.94; P = 0.007). Of note, patients receiving the second stent as a bail-out had worse survival free from MACE compared with those who received it as a planned technique (P = 0.045). CONCLUSION: The treatment of patients with bifurcated lesions with second and third generation zotarolimus-eluting stents is associated with good long-term clinical outcomes. Clinical outcome seems to be independent of lesion complexity, but may be influenced by the stenting technique (single or double stenting as well as elective or bail-out double stenting). © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
