Cheng-fu Cao, Wei-li Teng, Yuliang Ma, Qi Li, Hong Zhao, Mingyu Lu, Jian Liu, Wei-min Wang
{"title":"Long-term Clinical Outcomes of Coronary Rotational Atherectomy for Specific Indications","authors":"Cheng-fu Cao, Wei-li Teng, Yuliang Ma, Qi Li, Hong Zhao, Mingyu Lu, Jian Liu, Wei-min Wang","doi":"10.15212/cvia.2023.0016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This study compared the long-term outcomes between rotational atherectomy (RA) for specific indications and on-label use of RA for severely calcified coronary lesions. Methods: Data for patients who underwent RA between 2015 and 2020 in a single-center registry were analyzed. The specific indication group included patients with ostial lesions, unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis, chronic total occlusions, stent ablation, angulated lesions, and cardiac dysfunction, whereas patients with none of the above-mentioned characteristics were included in the on-label group. The primary endpoint was compared between groups. Results: A total of 176 patients in the on-label group and 125 patients in the specific indication group were included. Patient clinical characteristics were comparable between groups. The incidence of complications during the procedure was higher in the specific indication group than in the on-label group (20.0% vs. 10.8%, P=0.018). No significant difference was observed in in-hospital MACCE between groups (12.5% vs 9.7%, P=0.392). During 35 (10–57) months of follow-up, MACCE occurred in 46 patients (15.3%). The incidence of MACCE was much higher in the specific indication group than the on-label group (25.6% vs 13.6%, P=0.034). Conclusions: RA for specific indications, compared with on-label use, had a higher incidence of complications during the procedure and poorer long-term clinical outcomes.","PeriodicalId":41559,"journal":{"name":"Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15212/cvia.2023.0016","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: This study compared the long-term outcomes between rotational atherectomy (RA) for specific indications and on-label use of RA for severely calcified coronary lesions. Methods: Data for patients who underwent RA between 2015 and 2020 in a single-center registry were analyzed. The specific indication group included patients with ostial lesions, unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis, chronic total occlusions, stent ablation, angulated lesions, and cardiac dysfunction, whereas patients with none of the above-mentioned characteristics were included in the on-label group. The primary endpoint was compared between groups. Results: A total of 176 patients in the on-label group and 125 patients in the specific indication group were included. Patient clinical characteristics were comparable between groups. The incidence of complications during the procedure was higher in the specific indication group than in the on-label group (20.0% vs. 10.8%, P=0.018). No significant difference was observed in in-hospital MACCE between groups (12.5% vs 9.7%, P=0.392). During 35 (10–57) months of follow-up, MACCE occurred in 46 patients (15.3%). The incidence of MACCE was much higher in the specific indication group than the on-label group (25.6% vs 13.6%, P=0.034). Conclusions: RA for specific indications, compared with on-label use, had a higher incidence of complications during the procedure and poorer long-term clinical outcomes.
目的:本研究比较了特定适应症的旋转动脉粥样硬化切除术(RA)和标签上使用RA治疗严重钙化冠状动脉病变的长期结果。方法:对2015年至2020年单中心登记的RA患者数据进行分析。特殊适应症组包括有开口病变、无保护的左主干冠状动脉狭窄、慢性全闭塞、支架消融、成角病变和心功能不全的患者,而未标记组包括没有上述特征的患者。比较两组间的主要终点。结果:标签组176例,特殊适应症组125例。两组患者临床特征具有可比性。特定适应症组手术过程中并发症的发生率高于标签组(20.0%比10.8%,P=0.018)。两组住院MACCE比较差异无统计学意义(12.5% vs 9.7%, P=0.392)。在35(10-57)个月的随访中,46例(15.3%)患者发生MACCE。特定适应症组的MACCE发生率远高于标签组(25.6% vs 13.6%, P=0.034)。结论:与标签上使用的RA相比,用于特定适应症的RA在手术过程中有更高的并发症发生率和较差的长期临床结果。