Litoplastia coronaria: un pulso al calcio / Coronary lithoplasty: applying a pulse to calcified lesions

No disponible

Impacto de la revascularización coronaria percutánea de lesiones coronarias graves en ramas secundarias / Impact of percutaneous coronary revascularization of severe coronary lesions on secondary branches

Introducción y objetivos: Comparar la estrategia de revascularización percutánea de lesiones graves en ramas coronarias secundarias (RS) (diámetro ≥ 2 mm) de arterias epicárdicas mayores frente al tratamiento conservador. Métodos: Estudio de cohortes retrospectivo en el que se compara a pacientes con lesiones graves en RS de arterias epicárdicas principales tratados con revascularización percutánea o con un tratamiento farmacológico a criterio del operador. Se analizó el porcentaje de eventos relacionados con la rama (muerte cardiovascular, infarto de miocardio atribuible a RS o necesidad de revascularización de la RS). Resultados: Se analizaron 679 lesiones en RS (662 pacientes). Tras un seguimiento medio de 22,2+/-10,5 meses, no hubo diferencias significativas entre ambos grupos de tratamiento en mortalidad de causa cardiovascular (el 1,7 frente al 0,4%; p=0,14), infarto agudo de miocardio (IAM) no fatal (el 1,7 frente al 1,7%; p=0,96) o necesidad de revascularización de la RS (el 4,1 frente al 5,4%; p=0,45) ni en el porcentaje total de eventos (el 5,1 frente al 6,3%; p=0,54). Las variables que mostraron asociación con la ocurrencia de eventos en el análisis multivariable fueron la diabetes (sHR=2,87; IC95%, 1,37-5,47; p=0,004), IAM previo (sHR=3,54; IC95%, 1,77-7,30; p < 0,0001), el diámetro de referencia de la RS (sHR=0,16; IC95%, 0,03-0,97; p=0,047) y la longitud de la lesión (sHR=3,77; IC95%, 1,03-1,13; p < 0,0001). Estos resultados se mantuvieron tras realizar análisis por puntuación de propensión. Conclusiones: En el seguimiento, el porcentaje de eventos relacionados con la RS fue bajo respecto al total de pacientes, sin diferencias significativas entre una y otra estrategia de tratamiento. Las variables que se asociaron con la ocurrencia de eventos en el análisis multivariable fueron la diabetes mellitus, el antecedente de IAM y la mayor longitud de la lesión

Introduction and objectives: To analyze the percutaneous revascularization strategy for severe lesions in the secondary branches (SB) (diameter ≥ 2mm) of major epicardial arteries compared with conservative treatment. Methods: This study analyzed patients with severe SB lesions who underwent percutaneous revascularization treatment compared with patients who received pharmacological treatment. The study examined the percentage of branch-related events (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction attributable to SB, or the need for revascularization of the SB). Results: We analyzed 679 SB lesions (662 patients). After a mean follow-up of 22.2+/-10.5 months, there were no significant differences between the 2 treatment groups regarding the percentage of death from cardiovascular causes (1.7% vs 0.4%; P=.14), nonfatal acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (1.7% vs 1.7%; P=.96), the need for SB revascularization (4.1% vs 5.4%; P=.45) or in the total percentage of events (5.1% vs 6.3%; P=.54). The variables showing an association with event occurrence on multivariate analysis were diabetes (SHR, 2.87; 95%CI, 1.37-5.47; P=.004), prior AMI (SHR, 3.54; 95%CI, 1.77-7.30; P<.0001), SB reference diameter (SHR, 0.16; 95%CI, 0.03-0.97; P=.047), and lesion length (SHR, 3.77; 95%CI, 1.03-1.13; P<.0001). These results remained the same after the propensity score analysis. Conclusions: The percentage of SB-related events during follow-up is low, with no significant differences between the 2 treatment strategies. The variables associated with event occurrence in the multivariate analysis were the presence of diabetes mellitus, prior AMI, and greater lesion length

Impact of Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization of Severe Coronary Lesions on Secondary Branches.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To analyze the percutaneous revascularization strategy for severe lesions in the secondary branches (SB) (diameter ≥ 2mm) of major epicardial arteries compared with conservative treatment. METHODS: This study analyzed patients with severe SB lesions who underwent percutaneous revascularization treatment compared with patients who received pharmacological treatment. The study examined the percentage of branch-related events (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction attributable to SB, or the need for revascularization of the SB). RESULTS: We analyzed 679 SB lesions (662 patients). After a mean follow-up of 22.2±10.5 months, there were no significant differences between the 2 treatment groups regarding the percentage of death from cardiovascular causes (1.7% vs 0.4%; P=.14), nonfatal acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (1.7% vs 1.7%; P=.96), the need for SB revascularization (4.1% vs 5.4%; P=.45) or in the total percentage of events (5.1% vs 6.3%; P=.54). The variables showing an association with event occurrence on multivariate analysis were diabetes (SHR, 2.87; 95%CI, 1.37-5.47; P=.004), prior AMI (SHR, 3.54; 95%CI, 1.77-7.30; P<.0001), SB reference diameter (SHR, 0.16; 95%CI, 0.03-0.97; P=.047), and lesion length (SHR, 3.77; 95%CI, 1.03-1.13; P<.0001). These results remained the same after the propensity score analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of SB-related events during follow-up is low, with no significant differences between the 2 treatment strategies. The variables associated with event occurrence in the multivariate analysis were the presence of diabetes mellitus, prior AMI, and greater lesion length.