Abstract
Background
Calcified lesions are one of the most challenging cases for PCI, where optimal angiographic results and satisfying outcomes are hard to achieve.
Methods
We evaluated the baseline clinical, procedures characteristics and outcomes of patients with severe coronary artery calcification (CAC) who underwent coronary intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) and rotational atherectomy (RA).
Results
Respectively 152 and 238 patients who underwent IVL and RA are enrolled from January 2023 to November 2023. Regarding demographic characteristics, the gender proportion, medical history of PCI and smoke history among groups reach statistical significance. Left anterior descending and right coronary artery were the main vessels treated in both groups. The 2.5 and 3.0 mm IVL balloons and 1.5 mm burr were the most commonly used. 99.3% cases were successfully implanted drug-eluting stents after IVL balloon pre-treatment, which was higher than in the group treated with RA. During hospitalization, there were no serious adverse events in the IVL group, but there were two adverse events in the RA group. Procedural complications were higher in the RA group than the IVL group (5.5% vs. 0.7%, P = 0.027).
Conclusions
IVL appears to be safe and effective for the treatment of severe CAC lesions compared to RA.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Severe coronary artery calcification (CAC) increases the complexity of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) which presents a unique challenge to interventional cardiologists. The incidence of CAC was detected in 38% of all patients during angiography and 74% when intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) was used [1]. Advanced aged and the increase of diabetes, hypertension and renal insufficiency is the cause of the increase of the incidence rate and severity of vascular calcification [2, 3]. The combination of PCI and drug eluting stent (DES) implantation is currently the most common mode of coronary revascularization. However, the severe CAC patients who undergo PCI have worse clinical outcomes [4]. Traditionally, high pressure dilatation of non-compliant balloons, cutting/scoring balloons and atherectomy (orbital, rotational or laser) have been used to treat severe CAC, but PCI of severe CAC have inherent limitations, such as early complications (perforation, dissection, stent rupture, myocardial infarction) or late adverse events (restenosis, stent thrombosis, and repeated revascularization) [5, 6]. It may be due to CAC obstructing the delivery and release of stents, resulting in poor stent adhesion, malapposition or direct damage to the stent surface (including polymers), potentially affecting drug delivery [7, 8]. Researchers have found that incomplete stent expansion is the strongest predictor of postoperative stent thrombosis and restenosis [9, 10].
Coronary intravascular lithotripsy (IVL), which combines the principle of transmitting acoustic energy, is a new method to treat atherosclerotic plaque with severe CAC before stent implantation [11]. The safety and effectiveness of IVL in treatment of calcified lesions have been confirmed, and these studies indicate that IVL has a high success rate as an auxiliary method for coronary stent implantation, with good early angiographic and late clinical outcomes [12, 13]. The results of the Disrupt trials indicate that the acute gain of the lumen after IVL use is 1.6 mm2, and the surgical success rate is about 93% [14, 15]. Although these reports provide preliminary evidence and insights into the mechanism of calcium modification, their sample size is relatively small. Additionally, there are few studies comparing the efficacy and safety of IVL and rotational atherectomy (RA) in the treatment of CAC.
The aim of our study is to evaluate clinical outcomes comparing IVL with RA for the treatment of severe CAC in the Chinese population and optimize target lesion preparation for patients with severe CAC.
Methods
Study population
A cross-sectional observational trial was conducted in a single center. All subjects were recruited in the Center for Coronary Artery Disease, Beijing An-Zhen Hospital, Capital Medical University. All patients have severe CAC, defined as radiographic opacities on both sides of the arterial wall displayed by fluoroscopy before injection of contrast agent. At the discretion of the operator, the patient receives IVL or RA treatment. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) age<18 years old; (2) patients have contraindications or are not suitable for PCI; (3) patients receiving both IVL and RA were excluded. The study protocol was in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of Beijing An-Zhen Hospital of Capital Medical University. All patients signed a written informed consent form to participate in the study prior to any procedures.
Study device and procedures
The Shockwave Medical (Santa Clara, CA, USA) IVL catheter, which includes two integrated gravel launchers inside the balloon. The diameter range of the IVL catheter is from 2.5 millimeters to 4.0 millimeters, with a length of 12 millimeters. It is connected to the generator through a dedicated connector cable, and the generator is programmed to provide 10 continuous pulses at a speed of 1 pulse/second, with a maximum of 80 pulses per catheter. Select an IVL balloon in a 1:1 ratio of reference vessel diameter, located at the target lesion, inflate to 4 atm, and perform 10 IVL pulses. Then inflate the balloon to 6 atm and repeat this process after 10–15 s [16].
Rotational atherectomy (Boston) consists of a rotating olive shaped burr covered with 2000 to 3000 microscopic diamond chips, which can modify the calcified plaque and change the compliance of blood vessels. Other components include a control console, nitrogen tank, and a turbine started by a foot pedal. Burrs stick to the drive shaft and push through the 0.009-inch Rota-wire. Inject Rota flush solution containing 10,000 units of heparin into the drive shaft (in a 1 L saline bag) to minimize heat and friction between the device and Rota-wire [17].
Data collection and endpoints
Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics, echocardiography results, procedural details including angiographic and in-hospital outcomes were collected from electronic medical record review and were compared between those who underwent IVL or RA. All patients underwent echocardiography examination. The success of an IVL device is defined as the ability to pass the IVL catheter through the target lesion and transmit lithotripsy pulses. The success of RA is defined as the successful burr passing through the target lesion without burr retention. The effectiveness primary outcome was procedural success, defined as successful stent implantation, residual vascular stenosis less than 30% and no major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in the hospital. In-hospital MACE is defined as all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), or requiring emergency target vessel revascularization (TVR). Safety endpoints include perioperative complications (flow‐limiting dissection, perforation, slow/no reflow, cardiac tamponade).
Statistical analysis
Categorical variables were reported as frequencies (percentage), while continuous variables were reported as mean ± standard deviation or median and quartile range (25,75 percentiles). The categorical variables were tested using chi square or Fisher’s exact test. Continuous variables were tested for the differences with one-way ANOVA or the Kruskal-Wallis H test. Continuous variables were tested for normal distribution using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. A value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All the statistical analyses were performed using IBM-SPSS version 24.0.
Results
Baseline characteristics
This study included 152 patients who underwent IVL and 238 patients who underwent RA from January 2023 to November 2023. Baseline characteristics are displayed in Table 1. Regarding demographic characteristics, the gender proportion, medical history of PCI and smoking history among groups reach statistical significance. Unstable angina (UA) was the primary indication for PCI in over 60% of the patients in both groups. In the evaluation of cardiac function, there was no difference in echography between groups.
Procedures characteristics
Procedures characteristics are outlined in Table 2. Left anterior descending (LAD) and right coronary artery (RCA) were the main vessels treated in both groups. The 2.5 and 3.0 mm IVL balloons and 1.5 mm burr were the most commonly used. The length of lesions and the total length of stent implantation in the IVL group were smaller than those in the RA group, but the difference was not statistically significant. The use of endovascular imaging was higher in IVL than in RA group (56.2% vs. 40.1%). In our study, radial artery approach was the main approach in both treatment groups.
Procedural complications and outcomes
Procedural complications and in-hospital outcomes following IVL and RA treatments are showed in Table 3. During the treatment process, observe the morphological changes of the IVL balloon through X-ray fluoroscopy, and monitor the electrocardiogram and blood pressure changes. 99.3% of cases resulted in successful deployment of DES in the IVL group, which was higher than in the group treated with RA. During hospitalization, there were no serious adverse events (non-fatal myocardial infarction, TVR or death) in the IVL group, but there were two adverse events in the RA group. Procedural complications were higher in the RA group than the IVL group (5.5% vs. 0.7%, P = 0.027). There was only 1 case of coronary perforation in IVL group, which was not related with shock wave balloon due to distal guide wire, and the use of small balloon closure did not cause pericardial tamponade.
Discussion
This study is the first to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of IVL versus RA for the modification of severe CAC lesions in a Chinese population. The major findings are as follows:
-
1.
IVL was a safe and efficacious tool for CAC plaque modification, with trafficability in most cases.
-
2.
IVL was safe, without reported serious adverse events during hospitalization.
Proper lesion preparation before stent implantation is a prerequisite for successful PCI. However, PCI treatment for severe CAC is challenging as it is associated with an increased risk of perioperative complications (dissection, perforation and slow/no reflow) and inadequate stent expansion, which are predictive factors for stent thrombosis and restenosis [18]. RA has been used in the past to treat severe CAC disease, but according to reports, the hospital mortality rate is 5.4–7.5% [19]. Given such a high incidence rate, it is still crucial to find alternative treatment. The current best alternative therapy for severe CAC is IVL. The results of the Disrupt trials demonstrated the safety and efficacy of coronary IVL treatment for non-LM disease [14, 15]. Our data, though limited in sample size and non‐randomized, supports that patients treated with IVL have less periprocedural complications and in‐hospital MACE.
IVL emits sound pressure waves in a circumferential cross wall manner under low balloon expansion pressure, generating circumferential calcium cracks on multiple planes [20]. Its advantage lies in prioritizing calcium modification without affecting the soft tissue inside the blood vessels. RA burr has only one axis of rotation on Rota-wire, which rotates along the peripheral orbit of the blood vessel to perform plaque ablation. Due to the uniaxial rotation of the burr, it constantly comes into contact with the plaque, producing particles that damage microcirculation function, resulting in slow or no reflow [21]. There was no slow flow/no reflow observed in the use of IVL in the Disrupt studies. Furthermore, the literature reported that perforation rate of approximately 1.7% for RA, while IVL did not observe perforation in previous studies [22, 23]. Another potential advantage of IVL may be in patients with angulated, tortuous and eccentric lesions. Asymmetric CAC may lead to offset of the Rota-wire, which may not guide the burr to the calcified lesion, resulting in insufficient ablation during the advancement process and increasing the risk of burr entrapment. In contrast, IVL could overcome these issues because it does not rely on mechanical tissue damage caused by physical interactions, but rather emits diffuse sound pulses through balloons inflated at low pressures of 4 to 6 atmospheres [13]. IVL or RA are relative contraindications for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients, who typically have a risk of plaque rupture with thrombosis, but may be the only option for successful surgery for severe calcified culprit lesions. In recent studies on the use of RA or IVL in the setting of STEMI, the success rates of surgery were high and the incidences of MACE were low, which are consistent with this study [24, 25]. Moreover, IVL is more effective than RA in modifying deep calcification, as the impact of shockwave pulses on calcium flakes is independent of their depth in the vascular wall [26]. The advantages of these are that the energy distribution is uniform, which makes the plaque modification uniform, thereby facilitating the expansion and adhesion of the scaffold. Indeed, this different non ablation mechanism may explain lower perioperative complications and in-hospital MACE.
The optimal treatment for severe CAC is multi-adjuvant therapy, which depends on the nature and anatomical distribution of calcified plaques. Given the reassuring results of the Disrupt CAD project, as well as the subsequent multi center registrations in several large real-world settings [27, 28], coupled with the ease of use of the technology, it is expected to quickly be recognized as the preferred treatment for severe CAC before DES implantation. Optical coherence tomography shows that compared to RA, IVL causes more changes in calcified plaques, including longer incisions and deeper faults, which may explain the lower stent misalignment rate and improved stent expansion [26].
The successful use of this device in coronaries for ISR is also very attractive, as calcification often leads to poor stent expansion [29]. In addition, the use of IVL assisted transfemoral catheters in large-diameter catheterization procedure also provide greater possibilities for the application of IVL [30]. However, before selecting a suitable device, consideration must be given to the size limitations of the IVL system (short 12 mm balloon catheter with a diameter range of 2.5–4.0 mm) and the limitations on the number of ultrasound pulses transmitted [16]. Some data indicate that IVL can induce ventricular arrhythmias [31], and it is necessary to continue to pay attention to the safety of this therapy in the future. In summary, in patients with severe CAC requiring revascularization in this study, IVL seems to be feasible compared to RA, with a good initial success rate and incidence of complications.
Limitation
This study has several limitations. First, this was a small, retrospective study conducted in a single center, with a low evidence-based level. Further validation will be necessary in a larger cohort of patients. Larger scale research is needed to determine the effectiveness and safety of IVL. Second, the endovascular imaging data were not further analyzed in this study. Further analysis of lesion characteristics is needed in the future. Finally, the follow-up time is short and angiographic follow-up were not performed. Cardiac biomarkers were not routinely obtained after PCI.
Conclusion
This study supports that coronary IVL appears to be safe and effective for the treatment of severe CAC lesions compared to RA.
Data availability
The dataset analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Mintz GS, Popma JJ, Pichard AD, Kent KM, Satler LF, Chuang YC, et al. Patterns of calcification in coronary artery disease. A statistical analysis of intravascular ultrasound and coronary angiography in 1155 lesions. Circulation. 1995;91:1959–65.
Chen NX, Moe SM. Vascular calcification: pathophysiology and risk factors. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2012;14:228–37.
Madhavan MV, Tarigopula M, Mintz GS, Maehara A, Stone GW, Genereux P. Coronary artery calcification: pathogenesis and prognostic implications. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:1703–14.
Lee MS, Yang T, Lasala J, Cox D. Impact of coronary artery calcification in percutaneous coronary intervention with paclitaxel-eluting stents: two-year clinical outcomes of paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients from the arrive program. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;88:891–7.
Chambers JW, Feldman RL, Himmelstein SI, Bhatheja R, Villa AE, Strickman NE, et al. Pivotal trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the orbital atherectomy system in treating de novo, severely calcified coronary lesions (orbit ii). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:510–8.
Yamamoto MH, Maehara A, Karimi GK, Mintz GS, Parviz Y, Kim SS, et al. Mechanisms of orbital versus rotational atherectomy plaque modification in severely calcified lesions assessed by optical coherence tomography. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:2584–6.
Kobayashi Y, Okura H, Kume T, Yamada R, Kobayashi Y, Fukuhara K, et al. Impact of target lesion coronary calcification on stent expansion. Circ J. 2014;78:2209–14.
Wiemer M, Butz T, Schmidt W, Schmitz KP, Horstkotte D, Langer C. Scanning electron microscopic analysis of different drug eluting stents after failed implantation: from nearly undamaged to major damaged polymers. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;75:905–11.
Guedeney P, Claessen BE, Mehran R, Mintz GS, Liu M, Sorrentino S, et al. Coronary calcification and long-term outcomes according to drug-eluting stent generation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:1417–28.
Hong SJ, Mintz GS, Ahn CM, Kim JS, Kim BK, Ko YG, et al. Effect of intravascular ultrasound-guided drug-eluting stent implantation: 5-year follow-up of the ivus-xpl randomized trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:62–71.
Lenchur PD, Frishman WH. A novel approach to calcium destruction in coronary and peripheral blood vessels: intravascular lithotripsy. Cardiol Rev. 2023.
Hill JM, Kereiakes DJ, Shlofmitz RA, Klein AJ, Riley RF, Price MJ, et al. Intravascular lithotripsy for treatment of severely calcified coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:2635–46.
Tian F, Zhou SS, Liu JH, Chen H, Sun ZJ, Chen L, et al. Treatment of severely calcified coronary artery disease by intravascular lithotripsy primary outcomes and 180-day follow-up from the Chinese solstice trial. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2023;20:32–9.
Ali ZA, Kereiakes DJ, Hill JM, Saito S, Di Mario C, Honton B, et al. Impact of calcium eccentricity on the safety and effectiveness of coronary intravascular lithotripsy: pooled analysis from the disrupt cad studies. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2023;16:e012898.
Ali ZA, Nef H, Escaned J, Werner N, Banning AP, Hill JM, et al. Safety and effectiveness of coronary intravascular lithotripsy for treatment of severely calcified coronary stenoses: the disrupt cad ii study. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:e008434.
Aksoy A, Salazar C, Becher MU, Tiyerili V, Weber M, Jansen F, et al. Intravascular lithotripsy in calcified coronary lesions: a prospective, observational, multicenter registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:e008154.
Lee MS, Park KW, Shlofmitz E, Shlofmitz RA. Comparison of rotational atherectomy versus orbital atherectomy for the treatment of heavily calcified coronary plaques. Am J Cardiol. 2017;119:1320–3.
Riley RF, Henry TD, Mahmud E, Kirtane AJ, Brilakis ES, Goyal A, et al. Scai position statement on optimal percutaneous coronary interventional therapy for complex coronary artery disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;96:346–62.
Salisbury AC, Grantham JA, Brown WM, Ballard WL, Allen KB, Kirtane AJ, et al. Outcomes of medical therapy plus pci for multivessel or left main cad ineligible for surgery. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2023;16:261–73.
Cosgrove CS, Wilson SJ, Bogle R, Hanratty CG, Williams R, Walsh SJ, et al. Intravascular lithotripsy for lesion preparation in patients with calcific distal left main disease. EuroIntervention. 2020;16:76–9.
Sakakura K, Funayama H, Taniguchi Y, Tsurumaki Y, Yamamoto K, Matsumoto M, et al. The incidence of slow flow after rotational atherectomy of calcified coronary arteries: a randomized study of low speed versus high speed. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;89:832–40.
Abdel-Wahab M, Richardt G, Joachim BH, Toelg R, Geist V, Meinertz T, et al. High-speed rotational atherectomy before paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation in complex calcified coronary lesions: the randomized rotaxus (rotational atherectomy prior to taxus stent treatment for complex native coronary artery disease) trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:10–9.
De Silva K, Roy J, Webb I, Dworakowski R, Melikian N, Byrne J, et al. A calcific, undilatable stenosis: lithoplasty, a new tool in the box? JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:304–6.
Hemetsberger R, Mankerious N, Muntane-Carol G, Temporal J, Sulimov D, Gaede L et al. In-hospital outcomes of rotational atherectomy in St-elevation myocardial infarction: results from the multicentre rota-stemi network. Can J Cardiol. 2023.
Cosgrove C, Hanratty CG, Hill JM, Mahadevan K, Mailey J, Mcentegart M, et al. Intravascular lithotripsy for treatment of calcific coronary lesions in St elevation myocardial infarction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;99:322–8.
Kini AS, Vengrenyuk Y, Pena J, Motoyama S, Feig JE, Meelu OA, et al. Optical coherence tomography assessment of the mechanistic effects of rotational and orbital atherectomy in severely calcified coronary lesions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;86:1024–32.
Aziz A, Bhatia G, Pitt M, Choudhury A, Hailan A, Upadhyaya S, et al. Intravascular lithotripsy in calcified-coronary lesions: a real-world observational, European multicenter study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;98:225–35.
El JH, Holvoet W, De Roeck F, Cottens D, Ungureanu C, Bennett J, et al. Intracoronary lithotripsy in calcified coronary lesions: a multicenter observational study. J Invasive Cardiol. 2022;34:E24–31.
Tovar FM, Wilschut J, Van Mieghem NM, Daemen J. Coronary lithoplasty: a novel treatment for stent underexpansion. Eur Heart J. 2019;40:221.
Di Mario C, Chiriatti N, Stolcova M, Meucci F, Squillantini G. Lithoplasty-assisted transfemoral aortic valve implantation. Eur Heart J. 2018.
Karimi GK, Patel S, Shlofmitz RA, Maehara A, Kereiakes DJ, Hill JM, et al. Calcific plaque modification by acoustic shock waves: intravascular lithotripsy in coronary interventions. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14:e009354.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to all those who helped me during the writing of this manuscript.
Funding
National Natural Science Fund of China (No. 82200441, 81970291, 82170344); Beijing Hospitals Authority Youth Programme (No. QML20230607); Young Elite Scientists Sponsorship Program by BAST (No. BYESS2023238); and the Major State Basic Research Development Program of China (973 Program, No. 2015CB554404) supported this work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Yuhao Zhao and Ping Wang wrote the main manuscript text and prepared Figs. 1, 2 and 3. All authors reviewed the manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The study protocol was in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of Beijing An-Zhen Hospital of Capital Medical University. All patients signed a written informed consent form to participate in the study prior to any procedures.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhao, Y., Wang, P., Zheng, Z. et al. Comparison of intravascular lithotripsy versus rotational atherectomy for the treatment of severe coronary artery calcification. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 24, 311 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-024-03965-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-024-03965-1