{"title":"急性冠脉综合征钙化性冠状动脉狭窄患者血管内碎石术与旋转动脉粥样硬化切除术短期临床效果比较","authors":"Yasuhiro Honda, Kensaku Nishihira, Nehiro Kuriyama, Makoto Takamatsu, Keisuke Yamamoto, Shun Nishino, Kosuke Kadooka, Takeaki Kudo, Kenji Ogata, Toshiyuki Kimura, Kengo Ayabe, Keiichi Ashikaga, Yoshisato Shibata","doi":"10.1253/circrep.CR-25-0086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal revascularization strategy for calcified lesions in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) and rotational atherectomy (RA) for patients with ACS resulting from calcified lesions.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>Among 3,556 consecutive patients with ACS who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between 2016 and 2024, we retrospectively analyzed 52 patients who received drug-eluting stents with either IVL (n=24) or RA (n=28) for calcified lesions. The primary outcome was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). In addition, we evaluated slow-flow or no-reflow phenomena incidence during PCI and the procedural success rate. Compared with patients with RA, those with IVL had a smaller preprocedural minimum lumen diameter and a larger preprocedural reference vessel diameter. Primary outcomes and procedural success rates were comparable between both groups. However, the slow-flow or no-reflow incidence was significantly lower in the IVL group than in the RA group. After adjusting for confounders, IVL was independently associated with a lower slow-flow or no-reflow incidence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with ACS due to calcified lesions, there was no significant difference in 30-day MACE incidence between both groups. However, slow-flow incidence was lower in the IVL group.</p>","PeriodicalId":94305,"journal":{"name":"Circulation reports","volume":"7 8","pages":"612-618"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12331347/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Short-Term Clinical Outcomes Between Intravascular Lithotripsy and Rotational Atherectomy for Calcified Coronary Stenosis in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome.\",\"authors\":\"Yasuhiro Honda, Kensaku Nishihira, Nehiro Kuriyama, Makoto Takamatsu, Keisuke Yamamoto, Shun Nishino, Kosuke Kadooka, Takeaki Kudo, Kenji Ogata, Toshiyuki Kimura, Kengo Ayabe, Keiichi Ashikaga, Yoshisato Shibata\",\"doi\":\"10.1253/circrep.CR-25-0086\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal revascularization strategy for calcified lesions in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) and rotational atherectomy (RA) for patients with ACS resulting from calcified lesions.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>Among 3,556 consecutive patients with ACS who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between 2016 and 2024, we retrospectively analyzed 52 patients who received drug-eluting stents with either IVL (n=24) or RA (n=28) for calcified lesions. The primary outcome was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). In addition, we evaluated slow-flow or no-reflow phenomena incidence during PCI and the procedural success rate. Compared with patients with RA, those with IVL had a smaller preprocedural minimum lumen diameter and a larger preprocedural reference vessel diameter. Primary outcomes and procedural success rates were comparable between both groups. However, the slow-flow or no-reflow incidence was significantly lower in the IVL group than in the RA group. After adjusting for confounders, IVL was independently associated with a lower slow-flow or no-reflow incidence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with ACS due to calcified lesions, there was no significant difference in 30-day MACE incidence between both groups. However, slow-flow incidence was lower in the IVL group.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94305,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Circulation reports\",\"volume\":\"7 8\",\"pages\":\"612-618\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12331347/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Circulation reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1253/circrep.CR-25-0086\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/8/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1253/circrep.CR-25-0086","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of Short-Term Clinical Outcomes Between Intravascular Lithotripsy and Rotational Atherectomy for Calcified Coronary Stenosis in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome.
Background: The optimal revascularization strategy for calcified lesions in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) and rotational atherectomy (RA) for patients with ACS resulting from calcified lesions.
Methods and results: Among 3,556 consecutive patients with ACS who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between 2016 and 2024, we retrospectively analyzed 52 patients who received drug-eluting stents with either IVL (n=24) or RA (n=28) for calcified lesions. The primary outcome was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). In addition, we evaluated slow-flow or no-reflow phenomena incidence during PCI and the procedural success rate. Compared with patients with RA, those with IVL had a smaller preprocedural minimum lumen diameter and a larger preprocedural reference vessel diameter. Primary outcomes and procedural success rates were comparable between both groups. However, the slow-flow or no-reflow incidence was significantly lower in the IVL group than in the RA group. After adjusting for confounders, IVL was independently associated with a lower slow-flow or no-reflow incidence.
Conclusions: In patients with ACS due to calcified lesions, there was no significant difference in 30-day MACE incidence between both groups. However, slow-flow incidence was lower in the IVL group.