Atherectomy (directional, rotational, extractional) and its role in percutaneous revascularization

Abstract

After an initial wave of enthusiasm, atherectomy devices face a number of difficult issues today. The first two randomized studies comparing balloon angioplasty with directional atherectomy, the Coronary Angioplasty Versus Excisional Atherectomy Trial (CAVEAT) and the Canadian Coronary Atherectomy Trial (CCAT), showed no clinical benefit for atherectomy. Data from these trials, as well as other studies, suggest that the mechanism of lumen enlargement with atherectomy may be less beneficial than expected. A number of investigations are currently evaluating the benefit of even more aggressive debulking with directional coronary atherectomy, but in view of the increased incidence of acute complications, it is unlikely that this technique will increase its share in routine coronary angioplasty in the near future. Clinical evaluation of rotational and extractional atherectomy has not reached a conclusive phase yet, but results from registries and single-center observations show that these devices require adjunctive balloon angioplasty in a large proportion of cases, on the one hand, and that they do not solve the issue of restenosis, on the other. The difficulty in delineating the rationale for use of these devices highlights the urgent need for controlled and carefully designed device trials.