Jurado-Román Alfonso, Gómez-Menchero Antonio, Rivero-Santana Borja, Amat-Santos Ignacio J, Jiménez-Valero Santiago, Caballero-Borrego Juan, Ojeda Soledad, Miñana Gema, Gonzálvez-García Ariana, Tébar-Márquez Daniel, Camacho-Freire Santiago, Ocaranza-Sánchez Raymundo, Domínguez Antonio, Galeote Guillermo, Moreno Raúl
Cardiology Department, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain; Fundación de Investigación IDIPAZ, Madrid, Spain.
Cardiology Department, University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2025 Mar 10;18(5):606-618. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2024.11.012. Epub 2025 Feb 5.
Coronary calcification negatively affects the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention. There is a lack of randomized comparisons among different plaque modification techniques.
The aim of this study was to compare rotational atherectomy (RA), excimer laser coronary angioplasty (ELCA), and intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) for the treatment of patients with calcified coronary stenosis.
Patients with moderate to severe calcified coronary lesions were randomly assigned to percutaneous coronary intervention with RA, IVL, or ELCA. The primary endpoint was the percentage of stent expansion by optical coherence tomography. An intention-to-treat, noninferiority analysis was conducted.
A total of 171 patients (77.2% men [n = 132], mean age 70.9 ± 8.2 years) were enrolled, 57 in each treatment arm. Clinical presentation was chronic coronary syndrome in 64.3% of patients (n = 110) and acute coronary syndrome in 35.7% (n = 61). Severe angiographic calcification was observed in 82.5% of lesions (n = 141). Procedural success rate and final minimum stent area (RA, 5.5 ± 2.1 mm; IVL, 5.4 ± 1.8 mm; ELCA, 5.1 ± 1.8 mm) were similar among the 3 arms. IVL proved to be noninferior to RA, with no differences in stent expansion (RA, 86.4% ± 14.1%; IVL, 85.6% ± 13.3%; P = 0.77). ELCA did not reach noninferiority in the intention-to-treat analysis. The rate of complications was low, with no significant differences in the 3 arms but numerically lower with IVL.
In the first randomized trial comparing RA, IVL, and ELCA for the treatment of patients with calcified coronary lesions, IVL was noninferior to RA in terms of stent expansion. ELCA did not reach this noninferiority margin compared with RA. No significant differences were observed among the 3 arms regarding minimum stent area, procedural success rate, and complications, which were numerically lower with IVL.
冠状动脉钙化对经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的安全性和有效性有负面影响。不同斑块修饰技术之间缺乏随机对照比较。
本研究旨在比较旋磨术(RA)、准分子激光冠状动脉成形术(ELCA)和血管内冲击波碎石术(IVL)治疗冠状动脉钙化狭窄患者的效果。
将中度至重度冠状动脉钙化病变患者随机分配接受RA、IVL或ELCA经皮冠状动脉介入治疗。主要终点是光学相干断层扫描显示的支架扩张百分比。进行意向性分析和非劣效性分析。
共纳入171例患者(男性占77.2%[n = 132],平均年龄70.9±8.2岁),每个治疗组57例。64.3%(n = 110)的患者临床表现为慢性冠状动脉综合征,35.7%(n = 61)为急性冠状动脉综合征。82.5%(n = 141)的病变观察到严重血管造影钙化。三组的手术成功率和最终最小支架面积(RA组为5.5±2.1 mm;IVL组为5.4±1.8 mm;ELCA组为5.1±1.8 mm)相似。IVL被证明不劣于RA,支架扩张无差异(RA组为86.4%±14.1%;IVL组为85.6%±13.3%;P = 0.77)。在意向性分析中,ELCA未达到非劣效性。并发症发生率较低,三组无显著差异,但IVL组在数值上较低。
在第一项比较RA、IVL和ELCA治疗冠状动脉钙化病变患者的随机试验中,IVL在支架扩张方面不劣于RA。与RA相比,ELCA未达到这一非劣效性界限。三组在最小支架面积、手术成功率和并发症方面未观察到显著差异,IVL组在数值上较低。