BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2021
Comparison of optical coherence tomography-guided and intravascular ultrasound-guided rotational atherectomy for calcified coronary lesions.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Teng Weili, Li Qi, Ma Yuliang, Cao Chengfu, Liu Jian, Zhao Hong, Lu Mingyu, Hou Chang, Wang Weimin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To compare the effect and outcomes of optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided rotational atherectomy (RA) with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided RA in the treatment of calcified coronary lesions.
METHODS: Data of calcified coronary lesions treated with RA that underwent OCT-guided or IVUS-guided from January 2016 to December 2019 at a single-center registry were retrospectively analyzed. The effect and outcomes between underwent OCT-guided RA and IVUS-guided RA were compared.
RESULTS: A total of 33 lesions in 32 patients received OCT-guided RA and 51 lesions in 47 patients received IVUS-guided RA. There was no significant difference between OCT-guided RA group and IVUS-guided RA group in clinical baselines characteristics. Comparing the procedural and lesions characteristics of the two groups, the contrast volume was larger [(348.8 ± 110.6) ml vs. (275.2 ± 76.8) ml, P = 0.002] and the scoring balloon was more frequently performed (33.3% vs. 3.9%, P = 0.001) after RA and before stenting in the OCT-guided RA group. Comparing the intravascular imaging findings of the two groups, stent expansion was significantly larger in the OCT-guided RA group ([82 ± 8]% vs. [75 ± 9]%, P = 0.001). Both groups achieved procedural success immediately. There were no significantly differences in the incidence of complications. Although there was no statistical difference in the occurrence of MACE at 1 year between OCT-guided RA group and IVUS-guided RA group (3.1% vs. 6.4%, P = 0.517), no cardiovascular death, TVR and stent thrombosis occurred in OCT-guided RA group.
CONCLUSIONS: OCT-guided RA compared to IVUS-guided RA for treating calcified coronary lesions resulted in better stent expansion and may have improved prognosis.
METHODS: Data of calcified coronary lesions treated with RA that underwent OCT-guided or IVUS-guided from January 2016 to December 2019 at a single-center registry were retrospectively analyzed. The effect and outcomes between underwent OCT-guided RA and IVUS-guided RA were compared.
RESULTS: A total of 33 lesions in 32 patients received OCT-guided RA and 51 lesions in 47 patients received IVUS-guided RA. There was no significant difference between OCT-guided RA group and IVUS-guided RA group in clinical baselines characteristics. Comparing the procedural and lesions characteristics of the two groups, the contrast volume was larger [(348.8 ± 110.6) ml vs. (275.2 ± 76.8) ml, P = 0.002] and the scoring balloon was more frequently performed (33.3% vs. 3.9%, P = 0.001) after RA and before stenting in the OCT-guided RA group. Comparing the intravascular imaging findings of the two groups, stent expansion was significantly larger in the OCT-guided RA group ([82 ± 8]% vs. [75 ± 9]%, P = 0.001). Both groups achieved procedural success immediately. There were no significantly differences in the incidence of complications. Although there was no statistical difference in the occurrence of MACE at 1 year between OCT-guided RA group and IVUS-guided RA group (3.1% vs. 6.4%, P = 0.517), no cardiovascular death, TVR and stent thrombosis occurred in OCT-guided RA group.
CONCLUSIONS: OCT-guided RA compared to IVUS-guided RA for treating calcified coronary lesions resulted in better stent expansion and may have improved prognosis.