You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
Definition and Characterization of Coronary Calcification
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/jpm12101638

Coronary artery calcification is increasingly prevalent in our patient population. It significantly limits the procedural success of percutaneous coronary intervention and is associated with a higher risk of adverse cardiovascular events both in the short-term and long-term. 

coronary artery calcification intravascular imaging percutaneous coronary intervention

1. Introduction

The prevalence of moderate to severe calcification in coronary lesions being treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is between 18 to 24%, according to recent meta-analyses and multiethnic registries [1][2][3]. Advanced age, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, smoking, and chronic kidney disease are associated with coronary calcification [4]. Due to increasing age and comorbidities of patients undergoing PCI, the prevalence of severely calcified coronary lesions is increasing [5]. Severe coronary calcification is independently associated with increased major adverse cardiac events following PCI [2][5]. In addition to long-term adverse outcomes, treatment of calcified coronary lesions also poses significant technical challenges. It is associated with an increased likelihood of procedural failure (such as balloon uncrossability or stent under-expansion), complications (such as coronary dissection, coronary perforation, or balloon rupture), and periprocedural mortality and morbidity [5][6]. The periprocedural assessment of the extent and thickness of coronary calcium is critical for calcium modification planning [7][8]. There are many technologies available to modify severely calcified plaques, such as non-compliant (NC) balloons, rotational, orbital and laser atherectomy, and intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) [9]. Each of these modalities of calcium modification has advantages and disadvantages. The contemporary algorithm for treating severely calcified lesions with a preference for one device over the other is changing, especially with the advent of IVL. The selected relevant clinical trials that support their clinical use, as depicted in Table 1. 
Table 1. Relevant clinical trials for the treatment of coronary calcification.
Table
Study Study Arms Relevant Endpoint(s) Outcomes/Results * Conclusions
Cutting Balloon Angioplasty
GRT [10] CBA vs. PTCA Binary restenosis after 6 months CBA: 31.4%
PTCA: 30.4%
p = NS		 No reduction in restenosis with CBA after 6 months.
REDUCE (unpublished) CBA vs. PTCA Binary restenosis after 6 months CBA: 32.7%
PTCA: 25.5%
p = NS		 No reduction in restenosis with CBA after 6 months.
RESCUT [11] CBA vs. PTCA for ISR Binary restenosis after 7 months CBA: 29.8%
PTCA: 31.4%
p = NS		 No reduction in recurrent ISR with CBA after 7 months.
CBA before DES [12] CBA before DES vs. BA Minimum stent CSA (mm2), Acute lumen gain (mm2) CBA:6.26 ± 0.4, 3.74 ± 0.38
BA:5.03 ± 0.33, 2.44 ± 0.29
p = 0.031, 0.015		 CBA achieved larger lumen CSA and larger lumen gain compared to BA.
Mechanisms of Acute Lumen Gain Following Cutting Balloon Angioplasty in Calcified and Noncalcified Lesions [13] CBA vs. BA in calcified and non-calcified group ΔEEM CSA (mm2), ΔP + M CSA (mm2), Δlumen CSA (mm2) Calcified lesions:
CBA: 1.4 ± 1.7, −2.3 ± 1.9, 3.7 ± 1.5
BA: 1.2 ± 1.2, −1.8 ± 1.9, 3.0 ± 1.5
p = NS, NS, 0.05
Non-calcified lesions:
CBA: 1.0 ± 1.8, −2.9 ± 2.1, 3.9 ± 1.9
BA: 1.6 ± 1.8, −2.0 ± 1.9, 3.6 ± 1.6
p = NS(0.11), 0.03, NS		 In calcified lesions, CBA achieves a larger lumen gain vs. BA.
In noncalcified lesions, there is larger plaque reduction with CBA but no difference in lumen gain vs. BA.
Scoring Balloon Angioplasty
Intimal disruption and cobalt-chromium DES [14] SBA vs. BA Stent expansion, lumen eccentricity,
intimal disruption frequency, extent		 SBA: 68%, 0.94, 68%, 122°
BA: 62.1%, 0.80, 0.8, 65°
p = 0.017, 0.18, 0.035, 0.035		 SBA achieved increased stent expansion with similar lumen eccentricity when compared with BA. SBA had more frequent and extensive intimal disruption when compared with BA.
Predilatation with SBA vs. NC [15] SBA vs. NC Stent expansion (mm), in-stent late loss after 1 year (mm) SBA: 70.7 ± 11.2, 0.71 ± 0.63
NC: 69.1 ± 11.1, 0.23 ± 0.52
p = NS, 0.03		 SBA achieved decreased in-stent late loss when compared to NC after 1 year. There was no difference in stent expansion between SBA and NC groups.
Rotational Atherectomy
ERBAC [16] RA vs. ELCA vs. PTCA Procedural success ∑, TVR after 6 months RA: 89%, 42.4%
ELCA: 77%, 46%
PTCA: 80%, 31.9%
p = 0.0019, 0.013		 RA achieved superior procedural success when compared with ELCA and PTCA, but both RA and ELCA had unfavorable late outcomes when compared with PTCA.
COBRA [17] RA vs. PTCA Binary restenosis after 6 months RA: 49%
PTCA: 51%
p = 0.35		 RA did not reduce restenosis after 6 months when compared with PTCA.
DART [18] RA vs. PTCA in small vessels (2–3 mm) TVF after 12 months RA: 30.5%
PTCA: 31.2%
p = 0.98		 RA did not reduce TVF after 12 months when compared with PTCA.
STRATAS [19] Aggressive RA (B/A 0.7–0.9) with PTCA (<1 bar) vs. routine RA (B/A < 0.7) with PTCA (4 bar) Binary restenosis after 6 months Aggressive: 58%
Routine: 52%
p = NS		 Aggressive RA debulking did not reduce restenosis after 6 months when compared with routine RA debulking.
CARAT [20] Aggressive RA (B/A > 0.7) vs. Routine RA (B/A = 0.7) MACE after 6 months Aggressive: 36.3%
Routine: 32.7%
p = NS		 Aggressive RA debulking did not reduce MACE after 6 months compared with routine RA debulking.
ROOSTER [21] RA (B/A = 0.7) vs. PTCA for diffuse ISR with IVUS guidance TLR after 9 months RA: 32%
PTCA: 45%
p = 0.04		 RA achieved less TLR after 9 months compared with PTCA in diffuse ISR.
ARTIST [22] RA (B/A = 0.7) vs. PTCA for diffuse ISR with IVUS guidance in a subset MACE after 6 months RA: 80%
PTCA: 91%
p = 0.0052		 PTCA achieved a lower MACE when compared to RA in diffuse ISR.
ROTAXUS [23] RA with DES vs. DES Late lumen loss (mm) after 9 months RA with DES: 0.31 ± 0.52
DES: 0.44 ± 0.58
p = 0.04		 RA before DES achieved increased late lumen loss when compared to DES alone.
Prepare-CALC [24] RA vs. modified CSA Successful stent delivery and expansion, late lumen loss (mm) after 9 months RA: 98%, 0.22 ± 0.41
CSA: 81%, 0.16 ± 0.40
p = 0.001, 0.21		 RA achieved greater success at stent delivery and expansion than CSA and had similar late lumen loss rates after 9 months.
Orbital Atherectomy
ORBIT I [25] OA single arm Device success ∫
Procedural success ∬
TLR, MACE after 6 months		 Device success: 98%
Procedural success: 94%
TLR, MACE (6 months): 2%, 8%		 OA successfully facilitated stent delivery with a low cumulative TLR and MACE after 6 months.
ORBIT II [26] OA single arm Safety endpoint Ω (95% CI)
Efficacy endpoint Ψ (95% CI)		 Safety endpoint: 89.6% (86.7–92.5%)
Efficacy endpoint: 88.9% (85.5–91.6%)		 OA significantly exceeded the primary safety and efficacy endpoints of 83% and 82% respectively. OA also improved in-hospital and 30-day outcomes compared to historic controls with severe CAC.
Laser Atherectomy
LAVA [27] ELCA vs. PTCA in native vessels or SVG MACE after 6 months ELCA: 28.9%
PTCA: 23.5%
p = 0.55		 ELCA did not reduce MACE after 6 months compared with PTCA in native vessels or SVG.
AMRO [28] ELCA vs. PTCA in native vessels MACE after 6 months ELCA: 33.3%
PTCA: 29.9%
p = 0.55		 ELCA did not reduce MACE after 6 months compared with PTCA in native vessels.
Intravascular Lithotripsy
DISRUPT CAD I [29] Coronary IVL single arm Safety endpoint Ω Effectiveness endpoint Ψ Safety endpoint: 95%
Effectiveness endpoint: 98.5%		 Coronary IVL safely and effectively aided stent placement with minimal perioperative complications.
DISRUPT CAD II [30] Coronary IVL single arm Safety endpoint Ω Effectiveness endpoint Ψ
Calcium fractures measured by OCT
Mean stent expansion		 Safety endpoint: 100%
Effectiveness endpoint: 94.2%
Calcium fractures: 67.4%
Mean stent expansion: 101.7%		 Coronary IVL safely and effectively aided stent placement with minimal perioperative complications.
OCT demonstrated that calcium fractures were an underlying mechanism for IVL.
Coronary IVL allowed for excellent stent expansion.
DISRUPT CAD III [31] Coronary IVL single arm Safety endpoint Ω (lower-bound of 95% CI)
Effectiveness endpoint Ψ (lower-bound of 95% CI)		 Safety endpoint: 92.2% (89.9%, p = 0.0001)
Effectiveness endpoint: 92.4% (90.2%, p = 0.0001)		 Coronary IVL safely and successfully assisted with stent delivery. The lower bounds of the 95% CI for the safety and effectiveness endpoints exceeded the performance goal of 84.4% and 83.4%, respectively.
DISRUPT CAD IV [32] Coronary IVL single arm Safety endpoint Ω: CAD IV cohort vs. propensity matched historical IVL control group
Effectiveness endpoint Ψ: CAD IV cohort vs. propensity matched historical IVL control group		 Safety endpoint: 93.8% vs. 91.2%, p = 0.008
Effectiveness endpoint: 93.8% vs. 91.6%, p = 0.007		 Coronary IVL safely and effectively aided stent placement with minimal perioperative complications.
The results from coronary IVL in the Japanese CAD IV cohort were non-inferior to those from a study of patients treated with IVL in the USA and Europe.
Abbreviations: ΔEEM, change in external elastic membrane; ΔP + M, change in plaque plus media; Δlumen, change in lumen or acute lumen gain; B/A, burr/artery ratio; BA, balloon angioplasty; BMS, bare-metal stent; CABG, coronary artery bypass surgery; CAC, coronary artery calcification; CBA, cutting balloon angioplasty; CI, confidence interval; CSA, cross-sectional area; DES, drug-eluting stent; ELCA, excimer laser coronary angioplasty; ISR, in-stent restenosis; IVL, intravascular lithotripsy; IVUS, intravascular ultrasound; MACE, major adverse cardiac events; MI, myocardial infarction; NS, nonsignificant; NC, noncompliant balloon; OA, orbital atherectomy; OCT, optical coherence tomography; PTCA, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty; PTRA, percutaneous transluminal rotational atherectomy; RA, rotational atherectomy; SBA, scoring balloon angioplasty; SVG, saphenous vein graft; TVF, target vessel failure; TVR, target vessel revascularization. * In order of relevant endpoints; ∑ Diameter stenosis < 50%, absence of death, non-Q-wave MI, or CABG; ∫ Residual stenosis < 50% without device malfunction; ∬ <20% residual stenosis; Ω 30-day freedom from MACE; Ψ residual stenosis < 50% without in-hospital MACE.

2. Definition and Characterization of Coronary Calcification

Several imaging modalities can identify and characterize calcified coronary lesions, including coronary angiography, coronary CT angiography, and intravascular imaging [33]. Coronary CT angiography has emerged as a useful non-invasive tool to identify coronary calcium and plan coronary interventions. Measurement of coronary artery calcium score can be used to stratify cardiovascular risk as it is a powerful predictor of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [5]. Coronary angiography generally demonstrates severely calcified lesions as radiopacities without cardiac motion before contrast injection, frequently visible on both sides of the arterial lumen (tram-track). Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) enables full-thickness visualization of the coronary artery wall, allowing a detailed evaluation of calcified lesions and deposits within deeper layers of the coronary artery wall. Calcium appears as a bright, hyperechoic arch with acoustic shadowing. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) uses infrared light to create even higher resolution images, with a particular advantage in accurate visualization of calcium thickness. Calcium appears as low-intensity signal areas with well-delineated borders.
The 2021 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (ACC/AHA/SCAI) guidelines recommend using intracoronary imaging for procedural guidance in complex coronary artery stenting cases (class 2a recommendation, level of evidence B) [8]. Both OCT and IVUS can identify, localize, and quantify coronary artery calcium, allowing a comprehensive pre-PCI assessment of coronary calcium patterns and severity to predict successful stent expansion. Three essential OCT-derived parameters of coronary calcification predicted stent underexpansion, including an arc of calcium ≥ 180°, calcium length > 5 mm, and calcium thickness ≥ 0.5 mm [34]. On IVUS, the length of superficial calcium > 270° (≥5 mm), circumferential 360° calcium, a calcified nodule, and a small caliber vessel (<3.5 mm) predicted stent underexpansion [35]. Calcium scoring systems were developed to identify lesions that may require calcium modification. An OCT-based calcium score of ≥4 or an IVUS-based calcium score of ≥2 was associated with a significantly higher risk of stent underexpansion and indicates the need for calcium modification [34][35]. Table 2 shows a simplified system to categorize calcified coronary lesion severity into mild/moderate/severe, based on the presence of high-risk features on intravascular imaging [36].
Table 2. Classification of calcified coronary lesion severity based on intravascular imaging.
Table
Severity OCT-Based Calcium Score
  • Calcium Arc of >180° (2 Points), 90–180° (1 Point)
  • Calcium Length of >5 mm (1 Point)
  • Calcium Thickness of >0.5 mm (1 Point)
 IVUS-Based Calcium Score
  • Length of Calcium (>270°) of >5 mm (1 Point)
  • Presence of 360° Circumferential Calcium (1 Point)
  • Vessel Diameter of ≤3.5 mm (1 Point)
  • Presence of a Calcified Nodule (1 Point)
Mild to moderate 0–3 0–1
Severe ≥4 ≥2
Abbreviations: IVUS, intravascular ultrasound; OCT, optical coherence tomography.

References

  1. Bourantas, C.V.; Zhang, Y.J.; Garg, S.; Iqbal, J.; Valgimigli, M.; Windecker, S.; Mohr, F.W.; Silber, S.; Vries, T.; Onuma, Y.; et al. Prognostic implications of coronary calcification in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease treated by percutaneous coronary intervention: A patient-level pooled analysis of 7 contemporary stent trials. Heart 2014, 100, 1158–1164.
  2. Copeland-Halperin, R.S.; Baber, U.; Aquino, M.; Rajamanickam, A.; Roy, S.; Hasan, C.; Barman, N.; Kovacic, J.C.; Moreno, P.; Krishnan, P.; et al. Prevalence, correlates, and impact of coronary calcification on adverse events following PCI with newer-generation DES: Findings from a large multiethnic registry. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2018, 91, 859–866.
  3. Huisman, J.; van der Heijden, L.C.; Kok, M.M.; Louwerenburg, J.H.; Danse, P.W.; Jessurun, G.A.; de Man, F.H.; Lowik, M.M.; Linssen, G.C.; IJzerman, M.J.; et al. Two-year outcome after treatment of severely calcified lesions with newer-generation drug-eluting stents in acute coronary syndromes: A patient-level pooled analysis from TWENTE and DUTCH PEERS. J. Cardiol. 2017, 69, 660–665.
  4. Lee, M.S.; Shah, N. The Impact and Pathophysiologic Consequences of Coronary Artery Calcium Deposition in Percutaneous Coronary Interventions. J. Invasive Cardiol. 2016, 28, 160–167.
  5. Madhavan, M.V.; Tarigopula, M.; Mintz, G.S.; Maehara, A.; Stone, G.W.; Genereux, P. Coronary artery calcification: Pathogenesis and prognostic implications. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2014, 63, 1703–1714.
  6. Tan, K.; Sulke, N.; Taub, N.; Sowton, E. Clinical and lesion morphologic determinants of coronary angioplasty success and complications: Current experience. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 1995, 25, 855–865.
  7. Riley, R.F.; Henry, T.D.; Mahmud, E.; Kirtane, A.J.; Brilakis, E.S.; Goyal, A.; Grines, C.L.; Lombardi, W.L.; Maran, A.; Rab, T.; et al. SCAI position statement on optimal percutaneous coronary interventional therapy for complex coronary artery disease. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2020, 96, 346–362.
  8. Lawton, J.S.; Tamis-Holland, J.E.; Bangalore, S.; Bates, E.R.; Beckie, T.M.; Bischoff, J.M.; Bittl, J.A.; Cohen, M.G.; DiMaio, J.M.; Don, C.W.; et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2022, 145, e18–e114.
  9. Bulluck, H.; McEntegart, M. Contemporary tools and devices for coronary calcium modification. JRSM Cardiovasc. Dis. 2022, 11, 20480040221089760.
  10. Mauri, L.; Bonan, R.; Weiner, B.H.; Legrand, V.; Bassand, J.P.; Popma, J.J.; Niemyski, P.; Prpic, R.; Ho, K.K.; Chauhan, M.S.; et al. Cutting balloon angioplasty for the prevention of restenosis: Results of the Cutting Balloon Global Randomized Trial. Am. J. Cardiol. 2002, 90, 1079–1083.
  11. Albiero, R.; Silber, S.; Di Mario, C.; Cernigliaro, C.; Battaglia, S.; Reimers, B.; Frasheri, A.; Klauss, V.; Auge, J.M.; Rubartelli, P.; et al. Cutting balloon versus conventional balloon angioplasty for the treatment of in-stent restenosis: Results of the restenosis cutting balloon evaluation trial (RESCUT). J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2004, 43, 943–949.
  12. Tang, Z.; Bai, J.; Su, S.P.; Wang, Y.; Liu, M.H.; Bai, Q.C.; Tian, J.W.; Xue, Q.; Gao, L.; An, C.X.; et al. Cutting-balloon angioplasty before drug-eluting stent implantation for the treatment of severely calcified coronary lesions. J. Geriatr. Cardiol. 2014, 11, 44–49.
  13. Okura, H.; Hayase, M.; Shimodozono, S.; Kobayashi, T.; Sano, K.; Matsushita, T.; Kondo, T.; Kijima, M.; Nishikawa, H.; Kurogane, H.; et al. Mechanisms of acute lumen gain following cutting balloon angioplasty in calcified and noncalcified lesions: An intravascular ultrasound study. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2002, 57, 429–436.
  14. Jujo, K.; Saito, K.; Ishida, I.; Kim, A.; Suzuki, Y.; Furuki, Y.; Ouchi, T.; Ishii, Y.; Sekiguchi, H.; Yamaguchi, J.; et al. Intimal disruption affects drug-eluting cobalt-chromium stent expansion: A randomized trial comparing scoring and conventional balloon predilation. Int. J. Cardiol. 2016, 221, 23–31.
  15. Sadamatsu, K.; Yoshida, K.; Yoshidomi, Y.; Koga, Y.; Amari, K.; Tokunou, T. Comparison of pre-dilation with a non-compliant balloon versus a dual wire scoring balloon for coronary stenting. World J. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2013, 3, 395–400.
  16. Reifart, N.; Vandormael, M.; Krajcar, M.; Gohring, S.; Preusler, W.; Schwarz, F.; Storger, H.; Hofmann, M.; Klopper, J.; Muller, S.; et al. Randomized comparison of angioplasty of complex coronary lesions at a single center. Excimer Laser, Rotational Atherectomy, and Balloon Angioplasty Comparison (ERBAC) Study. Circulation 1997, 96, 91–98.
  17. Dill, T.; Dietz, U.; Hamm, C.W.; Kuchler, R.; Rupprecht, H.J.; Haude, M.; Cyran, J.; Ozbek, C.; Kuck, K.H.; Berger, J.; et al. A randomized comparison of balloon angioplasty versus rotational atherectomy in complex coronary lesions (COBRA study). Eur. Heart J. 2000, 21, 1759–1766.
  18. Mauri, L.; Reisman, M.; Buchbinder, M.; Popma, J.J.; Sharma, S.K.; Cutlip, D.E.; Ho, K.K.; Prpic, R.; Zimetbaum, P.J.; Kuntz, R.E.; et al. Comparison of rotational atherectomy with conventional balloon angioplasty in the prevention of restenosis of small coronary arteries: Results of the Dilatation vs Ablation Revascularization Trial Targeting Restenosis (DART). Am. Heart J. 2003, 145, 847–854.
  19. Whitlow, P.L.; Bass, T.A.; Kipperman, R.M.; Sharaf, B.L.; Ho, K.K.; Cutlip, D.E.; Zhang, Y.; Kuntz, R.E.; Williams, D.O.; Lasorda, D.M.; et al. Results of the study to determine rotablator and transluminal angioplasty strategy (STRATAS). Am. J. Cardiol. 2001, 87, 699–705.
  20. Safian, R.D.; Feldman, T.; Muller, D.W.; Mason, D.; Schreiber, T.; Haik, B.; Mooney, M.; O’Neill, W.W. Coronary angioplasty and Rotablator atherectomy trial (CARAT): Immediate and late results of a prospective multicenter randomized trial. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2001, 53, 213–220.
  21. Sharma, S.K.; Kini, A.; Mehran, R.; Lansky, A.; Kobayashi, Y.; Marmur, J.D. Randomized trial of Rotational Atherectomy Versus Balloon Angioplasty for Diffuse In-stent Restenosis (ROSTER). Am. Heart J. 2004, 147, 16–22.
  22. Vom Dahl, J.; Dietz, U.; Haager, P.K.; Silber, S.; Niccoli, L.; Buettner, H.J.; Schiele, F.; Thomas, M.; Commeau, P.; Ramsdale, D.R.; et al. Rotational atherectomy does not reduce recurrent in-stent restenosis: Results of the angioplasty versus rotational atherectomy for treatment of diffuse in-stent restenosis trial (ARTIST). Circulation 2002, 105, 583–588.
  23. Abdel-Wahab, M.; Richardt, G.; Joachim Büttner, H.; Toelg, R.; Geist, V.; Meinertz, T.; Schofer, J.; King, L.; Neumann, F.J.; Khattab, A.A. High-speed rotational atherectomy before paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation in complex calcified coronary lesions: The randomized ROTAXUS (Rotational Atherectomy Prior to Taxus Stent Treatment for Complex Native Coronary Artery Disease) trial. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2013, 6, 10–19.
  24. Abdel-Wahab, M.; Toelg, R.; Byrne, R.A.; Geist, V.; El-Mawardy, M.; Allali, A.; Rheude, T.; Robinson, D.R.; Abdelghani, M.; Sulimov, D.S.; et al. High-Speed Rotational Atherectomy Versus Modified Balloons Prior to Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation in Severely Calcified Coronary Lesions. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2018, 11, e007415.
  25. Parikh, K.; Chandra, P.; Choksi, N.; Khanna, P.; Chambers, J. Safety and feasibility of orbital atherectomy for the treatment of calcified coronary lesions: The ORBIT I trial. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2013, 81, 1134–1139.
  26. Chambers, J.W.; Feldman, R.L.; Himmelstein, S.I.; Bhatheja, R.; Villa, A.E.; Strickman, N.E.; Shlofmitz, R.A.; Dulas, D.D.; Arab, D.; Khanna, P.K.; et al. Pivotal trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the orbital atherectomy system in treating de novo, severely calcified coronary lesions (ORBIT II). JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2014, 7, 510–518.
  27. Stone, G.W.; de Marchena, E.; Dageforde, D.; Foschi, A.; Muhlestein, J.B.; McIvor, M.; Rizik, D.; Vanderlaan, R.; McDonnell, J. Prospective, randomized, multicenter comparison of laser-facilitated balloon angioplasty versus stand-alone balloon angioplasty in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease. The Laser Angioplasty Versus Angioplasty (LAVA) Trial Investigators. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 1997, 30, 1714–1721.
  28. Appelman, Y.E.; Piek, J.J.; Strikwerda, S.; Tijssen, J.G.; de Feyter, P.J.; David, G.K.; Serruys, P.W.; Margolis, J.R.; Koelemay, M.J.; Montauban van Swijndregt, E.W.; et al. Randomised trial of excimer laser angioplasty versus balloon angioplasty for treatment of obstructive coronary artery disease. Lancet 1996, 347, 79–84.
  29. Brinton, T.J.; Ali, Z.A.; Hill, J.M.; Meredith, I.T.; Maehara, A.; Illindala, U.; Lansky, A.; Gotberg, M.; Van Mieghem, N.M.; Whitbourn, R.; et al. Feasibility of Shockwave Coronary Intravascular Lithotripsy for the Treatment of Calcified Coronary Stenoses. Circulation 2019, 139, 834–836.
  30. Ali, Z.A.; Nef, H.; Escaned, J.; Werner, N.; Banning, A.P.; Hill, J.M.; De Bruyne, B.; Montorfano, M.; Lefevre, T.; Stone, G.W.; et al. Safety and Effectiveness of Coronary Intravascular Lithotripsy for Treatment of Severely Calcified Coronary Stenoses: The Disrupt CAD II Study. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2019, 12, e008434.
  31. Hill, J.M.; Kereiakes, D.J.; Shlofmitz, R.A.; Klein, A.J.; Riley, R.F.; Price, M.J.; Herrmann, H.C.; Bachinsky, W.; Waksman, R.; Stone, G.W.; et al. Intravascular Lithotripsy for Treatment of Severely Calcified Coronary Artery Disease. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2020, 76, 2635–2646.
  32. Saito, S.; Yamazaki, S.; Takahashi, A.; Namiki, A.; Kawasaki, T.; Otsuji, S.; Nakamura, S.; Shibata, Y.; Disrupt CAD IV Investigators. Intravascular Lithotripsy for Vessel Preparation in Severely Calcified Coronary Arteries Prior to Stent Placement- Primary Outcomes From the Japanese Disrupt CAD IV Study. Circ. J. 2021, 85, 826–833.
  33. Maehara, A.; Matsumura, M.; Ali, Z.A.; Mintz, G.S.; Stone, G.W. IVUS-Guided Versus OCT-Guided Coronary Stent Implantation: A Critical Appraisal. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2017, 10, 1487–1503.
  34. Fujino, A.; Mintz, G.S.; Matsumura, M.; Lee, T.; Kim, S.Y.; Hoshino, M.; Usui, E.; Yonetsu, T.; Haag, E.S.; Shlofmitz, R.A.; et al. A new optical coherence tomography-based calcium scoring system to predict stent underexpansion. EuroIntervention 2018, 13, e2182–e2189.
  35. Zhang, M.; Matsumura, M.; Usui, E.; Noguchi, M.; Fujimura, T.; Fall, K.N.; Zhang, Z.; Nazif, T.M.; Parikh, S.A.; Rabbani, L.E.; et al. Intravascular Ultrasound-Derived Calcium Score to Predict Stent Expansion in Severely Calcified Lesions. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2021, 14, e010296.
  36. Shah, M.; Najam, O.; Bhindi, R.; de Silva, K. Calcium Modification Techniques in Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2021, 14, e009870.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Pharmacology & Pharmacy
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Natthapon Angsubhakorn
,
Nicolas Kang
,
Colleen Fearon
,
Chol Techorueangwiwat
,
Pooja Swamy
,
Emmanouil S. Brilakis
,
Aditya S. Bharadwaj
View Times: 605
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 03 Jan 2023
Table of Contents
Academic Video Service
Feedback