AI Article Synopsis
- Doctors are studying two special treatment methods, orbital atherectomy (OA) and rotational atherectomy (RA), to see which one works better for patients with hardening arteries.
- They found that while OA reduces the time doctors spend using a special camera during the procedure, both methods are pretty similar in how safe and effective they are afterward.
- In the end, OA was better for saving time, but both treatments had similar results for patients in terms of problems or complications after the surgery.
Article Abstract
Background: Coronary artery calcification is associated with poor outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Atheroablative techniques such as orbital atherectomy (OA) and rotational atherectomy (RA) are routinely utilized to treat these calcified lesions in order to optimize lesion preparation and facilitate stent delivery.
Objectives: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the performance of OA versus RA in patients with calcified coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing PCI.
Methods: We conducted an electronic database search of all published data for studies that compared OA versus RA in patients with calcified coronary artery disease undergoing PCI and reported on outcomes of interest. Event rates were compared using a forest plot of odds ratios using a random-effects model assuming interstudy heterogeneity.
Results: A total of five observational studies (total number of patients = 1872; OA = 535, RA = 1337) were included in the final analysis. On pooled analysis, OA compared to RA was associated with a significant reduction in fluoroscopy times (OR = -6.33; 95% CI = -9.90 to -2.76; p < .0005; I = 82). There was no difference between the two techniques in terms of contrast volume, coronary artery dissection, device induced arterial perforation, cardiac tamponade, slow flow/no reflow, periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI), in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, 30-day MI, 30-day target vessel revascularization (TVR), and 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).
Conclusion: Except for lower fluoroscopy time with OA, there are no significant differences between OA and RA in relation to procedural, periprocedural, and thirty day outcomes among patients with calcified CAD undergoing PCI.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.12.037 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!