Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Intravascular Lithotripsy vs Atherectomy in the Treatment of Calcified Common Femoral Artery Disease.
Baig, Muhammad; Kwok, Michael; Aldairi, Ammer; Imran, Hafiz M; Khan, Mohammad S; Ngmadu, Kyari Sumayin; Hyder, Omar N; Aronow, Herbert D; Soukas, Peter A.
Afiliação
  • Baig M; Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
  • Kwok M; Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Providence VA Medical Center, Providence, Rhode Island.
  • Aldairi A; Department of Medicine, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
  • Imran HM; Department of Medicine, Kent Hospital, Warwick, Rhode Island.
  • Khan MS; Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
  • Ngmadu KS; Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Bowling Green, Kentucky.
  • Hyder ON; Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
  • Aronow HD; Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Providence VA Medical Center, Providence, Rhode Island.
  • Soukas PA; Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv ; 1(4): 100374, 2022.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39131925
ABSTRACT

Background:

Common femoral artery (CFA) disease is often heavily calcified and prone to low patency rates with endovascular treatment compared with surgical endarterectomy. Recent data suggest promising short-term outcomes with the adjunct use of intravascular lithotripsy; however, data on its midterm effectiveness are lacking. We compared clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) between patients receiving drug-coated balloon angioplasty with adjunct intravascular lithotripsy (IVL-DCB) vs adjunct atherectomy (Ath-DCB) for treatment of CFA disease.

Methods:

In a single-center retrospective cohort study, patients receiving IVL-DCB vs Ath-DCB for symptomatic CFA disease from January 2015 to March 2020 were included. The primary outcome was cumulative CD-TLR with angiographic restenosis ≥50%, estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis during 18-month follow-up and compared by log-rank test.

Results:

Total of 68 CFA lesions (Ath-DCB, 35; IVL-DCB, 33) were included. Patients had a mean age (standard deviation) of 72 (8) years and were predominantly male (63.3%) and White (92%). Mean baseline angiographic stenosis was 78% (11) in the Ath-DCB group and 70% (10) in the IVL-DCB group (P = .002). Technical success was 100% in both groups. One flow-limiting dissection occurred in IVL-DCB requiring stent placement, whereas 2 bailout stentings were performed in the Ath-DCB group. Cumulative Kaplan-Meier freedom from CD-TLR was 91.2% (95% CI, 81.6%-100%) in the Ath-DCB group vs 79.4% (95% CI, 64.6%-94.2%) in the IVL-DCB group (Log-rank P = .167).

Conclusions:

The safety and effectiveness of IVL-DCB were comparable to those of Ath-DCB in the treatment of calcified CFA disease during the 18-month follow-up. Further studies are required to verify these findings.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article