Comparison of interventional treatment options for coronary calcified nodules: A sub-analysis of the ROTA.shock trial
Rattachement africain : de. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
The optimal treatment for coronary calcified nodules (CNs) is still unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the modification of these lesions by coronary intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) and rotational atherectomy (RA) using optical coherence tomography (OCT). ROTA.shock was a 1:1 randomized, prospective, double-arm multi-center non-inferiority trial that compared the use of IVL and RA with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in severely calcified lesions. In 19 of the patients out of this study CNs were detected by OCT in the target lesion and were treated by either IVL or RA. The mean angle of CNs was significantly larger in final OCT scans than before RA (92 ± 17° vs. 68 ± 7°; p = 0.01) and IVL (89 ± 18° vs. 60 ± 10°; p = 0.03). The CNs were thinner upon final scans than in initial native scans (RA: 17.8 ± 7.8 mm vs. 38.6 ± 13.1 mm; p = 0.02; IVL: 16.5 ± 9.0 mm vs. 37.2 ± 14.3 mm; p = 0.02). Nodule volume did not differ significantly between native and final OCT scans (RA: 0.66 ± 0.12 mm3 vs. 0.61 ± 0.33 mm3; p = 0.68; IVL: 0.64 ± 0.19 mm3 vs. 0.68 ± 0.22 mm3; p = 0.74). Final stent eccentricity was high with 0.62 ± 0.10 after RA and 0.61 ± 0.09 after IVL. RA or IVL are unable to reduce the volume of the calcified plaque. CN modulation seems to be mainly induced by the stent implantation and not by RA or IVL.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Comparison of interventional treatment options for coronary calcified nodules: A sub-analysis of the ROTA.shock trial
- Date Crossref
- 01/11/2024
- Éditeur
- Elsevier BV
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.