冠状动脉内碎石术对严重钙化的冠状动脉主干病变的手术和临床影响。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-23 DOI:10.1002/ccd.31233
Federico Oliveri, Maura Meijer, Martijn J H Van Oort, Ibtihal Al Amri, Brian O Bingen, Bimmer E Claessen, Aukelien C Dimitriu-Leen, Joelle Kefer, Hany Girgis, Tessel Vossenberg, Frank Van der Kley, J Wouter Jukema, Jose M Montero-Cabezas
{"title":"冠状动脉内碎石术对严重钙化的冠状动脉主干病变的手术和临床影响。","authors":"Federico Oliveri, Maura Meijer, Martijn J H Van Oort, Ibtihal Al Amri, Brian O Bingen, Bimmer E Claessen, Aukelien C Dimitriu-Leen, Joelle Kefer, Hany Girgis, Tessel Vossenberg, Frank Van der Kley, J Wouter Jukema, Jose M Montero-Cabezas","doi":"10.1002/ccd.31233","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Percutaneous coronary intervention of calcified aorto-ostial lesions (AOL) pose unique challenges due to anatomical propensity for recoil, leading to poorer outcomes compared to non-AOL. Although intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) has shown excellent success and safety in heavily calcified plaques, evidence specific to AOL is limited. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IVL in AOL versus non-AOL.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients treated with IVL between 2019 and 2023 from an ongoing prospective multicenter registry were eligible for inclusion. Patients were therefore classified in AOL and non-AOL groups, based on anatomical location. The primary technical endpoint was device success, defined as the ability to deliver the IVL catheter and pulses at the target lesion, without angiographic complications. Secondary technical endpoint encompassed procedural success <30%, consisting of device success with residual stenosis <30%, final thrombolysis in myocardial infarction grade 3 flow, and no in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The primary clinical endpoint was in-hospital MACE, including cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 321 patients underwent IVL, including 48 with AOL. Device success showed no significant difference between AOL and non-AOL groups (100% vs. 98.2%; p = 0.35). A nonsignificant trend toward worse procedural success with residual stenosis <30% was observed in the AOL arm (AOL 81.3% vs. non-AOL 90.5%, p = 0.06). In-hospital MACE was significantly higher in AOL (4.2% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.048), attributed entirely to cardiac deaths. At 6-month follow-up, the incidence of MACE (AOL 8.3% vs. non-AOL 4.0%, p = 0.19), and cardiac deaths (AOL 4.2% vs non-AOL1.1%, p = 0.11) were comparable between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>IVL treatment for heavily calcified AOL demonstrates comparable procedural and 6-month clinical outcomes when compared to non-AOL, despite a higher incidence of in-hospital MACE.</p>","PeriodicalId":9650,"journal":{"name":"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Procedural and clinical impact of intracoronary lithotripsy in heavily calcified aorto-ostial coronary lesions.\",\"authors\":\"Federico Oliveri, Maura Meijer, Martijn J H Van Oort, Ibtihal Al Amri, Brian O Bingen, Bimmer E Claessen, Aukelien C Dimitriu-Leen, Joelle Kefer, Hany Girgis, Tessel Vossenberg, Frank Van der Kley, J Wouter Jukema, Jose M Montero-Cabezas\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ccd.31233\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Percutaneous coronary intervention of calcified aorto-ostial lesions (AOL) pose unique challenges due to anatomical propensity for recoil, leading to poorer outcomes compared to non-AOL. Although intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) has shown excellent success and safety in heavily calcified plaques, evidence specific to AOL is limited. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IVL in AOL versus non-AOL.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients treated with IVL between 2019 and 2023 from an ongoing prospective multicenter registry were eligible for inclusion. Patients were therefore classified in AOL and non-AOL groups, based on anatomical location. The primary technical endpoint was device success, defined as the ability to deliver the IVL catheter and pulses at the target lesion, without angiographic complications. Secondary technical endpoint encompassed procedural success <30%, consisting of device success with residual stenosis <30%, final thrombolysis in myocardial infarction grade 3 flow, and no in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The primary clinical endpoint was in-hospital MACE, including cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 321 patients underwent IVL, including 48 with AOL. Device success showed no significant difference between AOL and non-AOL groups (100% vs. 98.2%; p = 0.35). A nonsignificant trend toward worse procedural success with residual stenosis <30% was observed in the AOL arm (AOL 81.3% vs. non-AOL 90.5%, p = 0.06). In-hospital MACE was significantly higher in AOL (4.2% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.048), attributed entirely to cardiac deaths. At 6-month follow-up, the incidence of MACE (AOL 8.3% vs. non-AOL 4.0%, p = 0.19), and cardiac deaths (AOL 4.2% vs non-AOL1.1%, p = 0.11) were comparable between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>IVL treatment for heavily calcified AOL demonstrates comparable procedural and 6-month clinical outcomes when compared to non-AOL, despite a higher incidence of in-hospital MACE.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9650,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.31233\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.31233","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:经皮冠状动脉介入治疗钙化的主动脉-肋骨病变(AOL)具有独特的挑战性,因为解剖学上的反冲倾向会导致与非 AOL 相比更差的治疗效果。虽然血管内碎石术(IVL)在重度钙化斑块中显示出了极佳的成功率和安全性,但专门针对 AOL 的证据却很有限。本研究旨在评估IVL在AOL与非AOL中的疗效和安全性:方法:2019 年至 2023 年期间接受 IVL 治疗的患者均符合纳入条件,这些患者来自一个正在进行的前瞻性多中心登记处。因此,根据解剖位置将患者分为AOL组和非AOL组。主要技术终点是设备成功率,即在靶病变处输送 IVL 导管和脉冲的能力,且无血管造影并发症。次要技术终点包括手术成功率:共有 321 名患者接受了 IVL,其中 48 人接受了 AOL。AOL组和非AOL组的设备成功率无明显差异(100% vs. 98.2%; p = 0.35)。残余狭窄导致手术成功率降低的趋势并不明显:IVL治疗严重钙化的AOL与非AOL相比,尽管院内MACE发生率较高,但手术和6个月临床结果相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Procedural and clinical impact of intracoronary lithotripsy in heavily calcified aorto-ostial coronary lesions.

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention of calcified aorto-ostial lesions (AOL) pose unique challenges due to anatomical propensity for recoil, leading to poorer outcomes compared to non-AOL. Although intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) has shown excellent success and safety in heavily calcified plaques, evidence specific to AOL is limited. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IVL in AOL versus non-AOL.

Methods: Patients treated with IVL between 2019 and 2023 from an ongoing prospective multicenter registry were eligible for inclusion. Patients were therefore classified in AOL and non-AOL groups, based on anatomical location. The primary technical endpoint was device success, defined as the ability to deliver the IVL catheter and pulses at the target lesion, without angiographic complications. Secondary technical endpoint encompassed procedural success <30%, consisting of device success with residual stenosis <30%, final thrombolysis in myocardial infarction grade 3 flow, and no in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The primary clinical endpoint was in-hospital MACE, including cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization.

Results: A total of 321 patients underwent IVL, including 48 with AOL. Device success showed no significant difference between AOL and non-AOL groups (100% vs. 98.2%; p = 0.35). A nonsignificant trend toward worse procedural success with residual stenosis <30% was observed in the AOL arm (AOL 81.3% vs. non-AOL 90.5%, p = 0.06). In-hospital MACE was significantly higher in AOL (4.2% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.048), attributed entirely to cardiac deaths. At 6-month follow-up, the incidence of MACE (AOL 8.3% vs. non-AOL 4.0%, p = 0.19), and cardiac deaths (AOL 4.2% vs non-AOL1.1%, p = 0.11) were comparable between groups.

Conclusion: IVL treatment for heavily calcified AOL demonstrates comparable procedural and 6-month clinical outcomes when compared to non-AOL, despite a higher incidence of in-hospital MACE.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
8.70%
发文量
419
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions is an international journal covering the broad field of cardiovascular diseases. Subject material includes basic and clinical information that is derived from or related to invasive and interventional coronary or peripheral vascular techniques. The journal focuses on material that will be of immediate practical value to physicians providing patient care in the clinical laboratory setting. To accomplish this, the journal publishes Preliminary Reports and Work In Progress articles that complement the traditional Original Studies, Case Reports, and Comprehensive Reviews. Perspective and insight concerning controversial subjects and evolving technologies are provided regularly through Editorial Commentaries furnished by members of the Editorial Board and other experts. Articles are subject to double-blind peer review and complete editorial evaluation prior to any decision regarding acceptability.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信