Coronary rotational atherectomy in patients with severe aortic stenosis

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Rotational atherectomy (RA) has been shown to be safe and effective in patients with severe calcified coronary arteries lesions. However, clinical data on the use of RA in patients with concomitant severe aortic stenosis (AS patients) are lacking. Escalation to RA for coronary lesion preparation in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is still controversial, given their impaired haemodynamic status and possible higher risk of complications. We reported the clinical outcomes of AS patients undergoing RA and TAVI from a prospective clinical registry and compared their outcome with patients undergoing RA with no severe aortic valve stenosis (non-AS patients). Methods We retrieved data of all consecutively enrolled patients in a single centre registry from January 2016 up to October 2021. All AS patients who underwent RA prior to TAVI within a six-month period were included for our analysis. We compared the AS patients with all patients without severe aortic stenosis (non-AS patients) who underwent RA during the same period. Data were analysed to assess rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) in AS vs non-AS patients. MACE was defined as composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularisation. Procedural characteristics as well as in-hospital outcomes and complications were also examined to detect differences between both patient groups. We then performed univariate and multivariate analyses using binary logistic regression with the presence of severe aortic stenosis as a dependent variable for MACE. Results A total of 472 patients underwent RA. Of those, 38 (8.05%) had severe AS and received TAVI within six months after index RA. Compared with the AS-patients, more non-AS patients presented with acute coronary syndrome (2.6% vs 19.8 %; p<0.009). Left main coronary artery intervention was documented in 36.8% of the AS-patients and in 25.1% of the non-AS patients. Mechanical circulatory support during the procedures was low (10 %) in both groups and was used only in two patients from the AS group. The procedural success was 97% and did not differ between both patients’ groups. There was no difference of in-hospital MACE between the AS and non-AS patients (7.9% vs 8.8%; p=0.418). Procedural rates of complications related to RA such as slow flow, coronary dissection, coronary perforation, or trapped burr did not differ between both patient groups. Adverse outcomes of RA were not affected by the presence of severe AS in the univariate analysis (OR 1.12; 95% CI [0.33-3.91]; p=0.857). Conclusion RA in patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI is feasible, and in-hospital adverse events were comparable to non-AS patients. Adequate lesion preparation of calcified coronary arteries should be implemented regardless of the presence of severe AS.