Safety and feasibility of rotational atherectomy (RA) versus conventional stenting in patients with chronic total occlusion (CTO) lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Interventional cardiologists face challenges in managing chronic total occlusion (CTO) lesions, with conflicting results when comparing rotational atherectomy (RA) to conventional PCI. This meta-analysis aims to provide a critical evaluation of the safety and feasibility of RA in CTO lesions. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid, and Cochrane central library until April 2023 were searched for relevant studies. MACE was our primary outcomes, other outcomes were all cause of death, cardiac death, MI, and TVR. Also, we reported angiographic outcomes as technical success, procedural success, and procedural complications in a random effect model. The pooled data was analyzed using odds ratio (OR) with its 95% CI using STATA 17 MP. RESULTS: Seven studies comprising 5494 patients with a mean follow-up of 43.1 months were included in this meta-analysis. Our pooled analysis showed that RA was comparable to PCI to decrease the incidence of MACE (OR = 0.98, 95% CI [0.74 to 1.3], p = 0.9). Moreover, there was no significant difference between RA and conventional PCI in terms of other clinical or angiographic outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that RA had comparable clinical and angiographic outcomes as conventional PCI in CTO lesions, which offer interventional cardiologists an expanded perspective when addressing calcified lesions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42023417362.

A comprehensive guide on the optimal timing of PCI in the setting of acute coronary syndrome: An updated meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Invasive revascularization is recommended for cohorts of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). However, the optimal timing of invasive revascularization is still controversial and no defined consensus is established. We aim to give a comprehensive appraisal on the optimal timing of invasive strategy in the heterogenous population of ACS. METHODS: Relevant studies were assessed through PubMed, Scopus, Web of science, and Cochrane Library from inception until April 2023. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all-cause mortality were our primary outcomes of interest, other secondary outcomes were cardiac death, TVR, MI, repeat revascularization, recurrent ischemia, and major bleeding. The data was pooled as odds ratio (OR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random effect model using STATA 17 MP. RESULTS: A total of 26 studies comprising 21,443 patients were included in the analysis. Early intervention was favor to decrease all-cause mortality (OR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.98, p = 0.03), when compared to delayed intervention. Subgroup analysis showed that early intervention was significantly associated with all-cause mortality reduction in only NSTE-ACS (OR = 0.83, 95% CI [0.7 to 0.99], p = 0.04). However, there was no significant difference between early and delayed intervention in terms of MACE, cardiac death, TVR, MI, repeat revascularization, recurrent ischemia, and major bleeding. CONCLUSION: An early intervention was associated with lower mortality rates compared to delayed intervention in NSTE-ACS with no significant difference in other clinical outcomes. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023415574.