Comparison of Vascular Injury From Intravascular Lithotripsy, Cutting, or Ultra-High-Pressure Balloons During Coronary Calcium Modification.

BACKGROUND

Effective modification of heavily calcified coronary lesions is critical for successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL), cutting balloons (CBs), and ultra-high-pressure balloons (UHBs) are used commonly, yet data comparing their effectiveness and safety for calcified lesion modification remain unavailable.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of IVL, a CB, and a UHB on calcified coronary lesions in human cadaveric arteries, focusing on calcium fracture formation and vascular injury.

METHODS

Seventeen calcified lesions from 6 cadavers were randomized to treatment with IVL (n = 5), the CB (n = 6), or the UHB (n = 6). Pre- and post-treatment optical coherence tomography, micro-computed tomography (CT), and histology were coregistered to evaluate calcium fractures and medial injury.

RESULTS

Fractures confirmed by micro-CT and histology were observed in 80% of IVL-treated lesions, 66.7% treated with the CB, and 33.3% treated with the UHB (P = 0.350). Medial injury occurred significantly less frequently with IVL (20.0%) compared with the CB (83.3%) and the UHB (100%) (P = 0.012). In histologic sections with a calcium arc of ≥180°, IVL induced fractures in 100% of sections, all without medial injury, while the CB and UHB caused fractures without medial injury in 16.7% and 20.0% of sections, respectively (P = 0.007). For calcium arcs <180°, IVL produced fractures in 57.1% of sections, all without medial injury, compared with the CB (11.1% without medial injury) and UHB (0% without medial injury) (P = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

IVL effectively modifies calcified lesions with less medial vascular injury compared with a CB and a UHB.