Intravascular lithotripsy compared to rotational atherectomy for the treatment of calcified distal left main coronary artery disease: A single center experience.

Abstract

The safety and efficacy of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) for the treatment of calcified distal left main (LM) disease remains unclear, especially compared to rotational atherectomy (RA). We retrospectively analyzed the baseline clinical, angiographic, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) characteristics and procedural outcomes of 107 patients who underwent distal LM percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with IVL (with or without adjunct atherectomy) versus RA alone for plaque modification before stenting at a single center between 2020 and 2022. A total of 50 patients underwent calcium modification with IVL with or without adjunct atherectomy and 57 with RA only. The mean age was 73 years and with a high prevalence of diabetes (58.9%), chronic kidney disease (42.1%), prior revascularization (coronary artery bypass graft surgery [36.4%] or prior PCI [32.7%]). Acute coronary syndrome was the primary indication for PCI in over 50% of the patients in both groups. Medina 1-1-1 LM bifurcation disease was identified in 64% and 60% of the IVL and RA groups (p = 0.64) respectively. Final minimum stent area in distal LM (>8.2 mm2 ), ostial LAD (>6.3 mm2 ) and ostial LCX (>5.0 mm2 ) were achieved in 96%, 85% and 89% of cases treated with IVL respectively and 93%, 93% and 100% of cases treated with RA respectively (LM p = 1.00; LAD p = 0.62; LCX; p = 1.00 for difference between the two groups). Procedural success (technical success without in-hospital major adverse events) was achieved in 98% of the IVL group and 86% of the RA-only group (p = 0.04). There were eight procedural complications (flow-limiting dissection, perforation, or slow/no-reflow) in the RA group compared to four in the IVL group (NS), and one patient in the RA required salvaged mechanical support compared to none in the IVL group. Plaque modification with coronary IVL appears to be efficacious and safe for the treatment of severely calcified distal LM lesions compared to RA only. Larger randomized studies are needed to confirm these findings.