Search

Background: Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) has demonstrated effectiveness in the treatment of calcified lesions in selected patients with stable coronary disease., Objectives: The authors sought to assess the performance of coronary IVL in calcified coronary lesions in a real-life, all comers, setting., Methods: The REPLICA-EPIC18 study prospectively enrolled consecutive patients treated with IVL in 26 centers in Spain. An independent core laboratory performed the angiographic analysis and event adjudication. The primary effectiveness endpoint assessed procedural success (successful IVL delivery, final diameter stenosis <20%, and absence of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]). The primary safety endpoint measured freedom from MACE at 30 days. A predefined substudy compared outcomes between acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) patients., Results: A total of 426 patients (456 lesions) were included, 63% of the patients presenting with ACS. IVL delivery was successful in 99% of cases. Before IVL, 49% of lesions were considered undilatable. The primary effectiveness endpoint was achieved in 66% of patients, with similar rates among CCS patients (68%) and ACS patients (65%). Likewise, there were no significant differences in angiographic success after IVL between CCS and ACS patients. The rate of MACE at 30 days (primary safety endpoint) was 3% (1% in CCS and 5% in ACS patients [P = 0.073])., Conclusions: Coronary IVL proved to be a feasible and safe procedure in a "real-life" setting, effectively facilitating stent implantation in severely calcified lesions. Patients with ACS on admission showed similar angiographic success rates but showed a trend toward higher 30-day MACE compared with patients with CCS. (REPLICA-EPIC18 study [Registry of Coronary Lithotripsy in Spain]; NCT04298307)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The study sponsor, Fundación EPIC, has received an institutional research grant from Shockwave Medical (Santa Clara, California, USA) to cover the design and maintenance costs of the electronic case report form. Shockwave Medical has had no influence on the study design or protocol in any respect. Shockwave Medical was not involved in the conduct of the study, including inclusion, follow-up, data collection, analysis, interpretation of results, drafting, and final approval of the protocol, nor in the genesis of this paper. Dr Rodriguez-Leor has received speaker honoraria and consulting fees from Medtronic and World Medica. Dr Pérez de Prado has received speaker honoraria and consulting fees from iVascular, Boston Scientific, Terumo, B. Braun, and Abbott Vascular. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Drug-eluting balloons currently constitute a therapeutic tool used in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Long-term results remain unknown. We evaluated the prognosis of PCI using a second generation paclitaxel-eluting balloon (PEB) in real-world patients. We included all PCI with PEB in de novo or in-stent restenosis coronary lesions performed in our unit from March 2009 to March 2019. We assessed the composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) rate after a median follow-up of 42 months. Consecutive patients (n = 320) with 386 lesions were included; 46.9% presented with stable angina and 53.1% acute coronary syndromes; 52.6% of the lesions were in-stent restenosis and 47.3% de novo lesions with a mean diameter of 2.4 ± 0.5 mm. A bare metal stent was implanted in 6.7% and a drug-eluting stent in 8.5% of patients. The MACE rate was 8%: 10 (2.6%) cardiovascular deaths, 13 (3.4%) myocardial infarctions, and 16 (4.1%) target lesion revascularization. The all-cause death rate was 5.2%. No cases of thrombosis were recorded. In conclusion, PEB was a safe and effective tool to treat in-stent restenosis and de novo coronary lesions, especially small vessel disease, during long-term follow-up.

Background: The usefulness of drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) has not been fully elucidated in calcified coronary lesions (CCLs). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of DEBs compared to a drug-eluting stent (DES) in this setting. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane were searched through December 2023. The primary endpoint was 12 months major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Secondary endpoints included clinical outcomes and angiographic results after PCI and at a 12-month follow-up. Results: Five studies and a total of 1141 patients with 1176 coronary lesions were included. Overall, the DEB was comparable to DES in MACE (RR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.62–1.19, p = 0.36), cardiac death (RR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.23–1.53, p = 0.28), myocardial infarction (RR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.25–3.24, p = 0.87) and target lesion revascularization (RR = 1.1, 95% CI: 0.68–1.77, p = 0.70). Although the DEB was associated with worse acute angiographic outcomes (acute gain; MD = −0.65, 95% CI: −0.73, −0.56 and minimal lumen diameter; MD = −0.75, 95% CI: −0.89, −0.61), it showed better results at 12 months follow-up (late lumen loss; MD = −0.34, 95% CI: −0.62, −0.07). Conclusions: This meta-analysis showed that the DEB strategy is comparable to DES in the treatment of CCLs in terms of clinical outcomes. Although the DEB strategy had inferior acute angiographic results, it may offer better angiographic results at follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]