Outcomes of rotational atherectomy versus orbital atherectomy for the treatment of heavily calcified coronary stenosis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

  • Abdul Ahad Khan
    Division of Cardiovascular Medicine East Tennessee State University Johnson City Tennessee USA
  • Ghulam Murtaza
    Division of Cardiovascular Medicine East Tennessee State University Johnson City Tennessee USA
  • Muhammad Faisal Khalid
    Division of Cardiovascular Medicine East Tennessee State University Johnson City Tennessee USA
  • Christopher J. White
    Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, The Ochsner Clinical School University of Queensland Brisbane Queensland Australia
  • Mamas A. Mamas
    Keele Cardiovascular Research Group Keele University Stoke on Trent UK
  • Debabrata Mukherjee
    Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine Texas Tech University Lubbock Texas USA
  • Hani Jneid
    Division of Cardiology Baylor College of Medicine Houston Texas USA
  • Madhan Shanmugasundaram
    University of Arizona College of Medicine Tucson Arizona USA
  • Harsha S. Nagarajarao
    Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine Texas Tech University Lubbock Texas USA
  • Timir K. Paul
    Division of Cardiovascular Medicine East Tennessee State University Johnson City Tennessee USA

説明

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Introduction</jats:title><jats:p>The optimal approach to deal with severe coronary artery calcification (CAC) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains ill‐defined.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>We conducted an electronic database search of all published studies comparing Orbital versus Rotational Atherectomy in patients undergoing PCI.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Eight observational studies were included in the analysis. Overall, there were no significant differences in Major‐adverse‐cardiac‐events/MACE (OR: 0.81, CI: 0.63–1.05, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .11), myocardial‐infarction/MI (OR: 0.75, CI: 0.56–1.00, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .05), all‐cause mortality (OR: 0.82, CI: 0.25–2.64, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .73) or Target‐vessel‐revascularization/TVR (OR: 0.72, CI: 0.38–1.36, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .31). However, OA was associated with lower long‐term MACE (1‐year), (OR: 0.66, CI: 0.44–0.99, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .04), long‐term TVR (OR: 0.40, CI: 0.18–0.89, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .03), and short‐term MI (in‐hospital and 30‐day) (OR: 0.64, CI: 0.44–0.94, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .02). OA was associated with more coronary artery dissections (OR: 2.61, CI: 1.38–4.92, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .003) and device‐related coronary perforations (OR: 2.79, CI: 1.08–7.19, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .03). There were no differences in cardiac tamponade (OR: 1.78, CI: 0.37–8.69, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .47). OA was noted to have significantly lower fluoroscopy time (MD: −3.96 min, CI: −7.67, −0.25; <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .04) compared to RA. No significant difference was noted in terms of contrast volume between the two groups (OR: −4.35 ml, CI: −14.52, 23.22; <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .65).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>Although there was no difference in overall MACE, MI, all‐cause mortality and TVR, OA was associated with lower long‐term MACE and short‐term MI. OA is associated with lower fluoroscopy time but higher rates of coronary artery dissection and coronary perforation.</jats:p></jats:sec>

収録刊行物

被引用文献 (1)*注記

もっと見る

詳細情報 詳細情報について

問題の指摘

ページトップへ