Mario Iannaccone1, Umberto Barbero1, Fabrizio D'ascenzo1, Azeem Latib2, Mauro Pennacchi3, Marco Luciano Rossi4, Fabrizio Ugo5, Emanuele Meliga6, Hiroyoshi Kawamoto7, Claudio Moretti1, Alfonso Ielasi8, Roberto Garbo5, Antonio Colombo2, Gennaro Sardella3, Giacomo G Boccuzzi5. 1. "Citta' Della Scienza e della Salute", University of Turin, Italy. 2. Italy and EMO-GVM Centro Cuore Columbus, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Milan, Italy. 3. Department of Cardiovascular, Respiratory and Morphologic Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Italy. 4. Division of Cardiology, Istituto Humanitas, Milan, Italy. 5. Cardiology Department, Ospedale San Giovanni Bosco, Torino, Italy. 6. Interventional Cardiology Unit, a.O. Ordine Mauriziano Umberto I, Turin, Italy. 7. Interventional cardiology unit, New Tokyo Hospital, Chiba, Japan. 8. Department of Cardiology, Azienda Ospedaliera Bolognini Seriate, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rotational atherectomy (RA) is relatively contraindicated in patients with lesions ≥25 mm of length. Aim of this study was to evaluate RA safety and efficacy in this subset of patients with new technology and devices. METHODS AND RESULTS: From April 2002 to August 2013, the ROTATE registry included all consecutive patients undergoing RA in 8 centres. They were divided into shorter lesion group (SLG, lesions < 25 mm) and longer lesion group (LLG, lesions ≥ 25 mm). The angiographic success (AS) was the primary end point. Procedural complications (PC), a composite end point of procedural perforation, slow flow/no flow, and in-hospital major acute cardiovascular events (MACE), were secondary end points, along with death, nonfatal MI, target lesion revascularization, and MACE during follow-up. Sensitivity analysis was performed according to generation of DES. 1186 patients were included: 51.5% in SLG and 48.4% in LLG. Mean age was 70.4 ± 9.3 years, 64.5% were male. AS and PC did not differ between the two groups (93% vs 91%, p = 0.24 and 9.8 vs 9.4%, p = 0.84). During follow-up (27.6 ± 22.9 months), MACE did not differ between the two groups (28% vs 29.1%, p = 0.95). At multivariate analysis chronic kidney disease, male gender increased risk of MACE (HR 1.94, IQR 1.29-2.0, p = 0.01, HR 0.52, IQR 0.34-0.79, p = 0.01) while second-generation DES seemed protective (HR 0.53, IQR 0.31-0.88, p = 0.02). Data were confirmed at sensitivity analysis for second-generation DES (759 pts, 63.9%). No differences were found in this subpopulation between the two groups in term of AS, PC, and long-term MACE (93.6% vs 93.5%, p = 0.28, 11.9% vs 9.4%, p = 0.32 and 25.5% vs 23.9%, p = 0.72, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Treating coronary lesions ≥ 25 mm length with RA does not impact short- and long-term outcome, in particular, in patients with second-generation DES.
BACKGROUND: Rotational atherectomy (RA) is relatively contraindicated in patients with lesions ≥25 mm of length. Aim of this study was to evaluate RA safety and efficacy in this subset of patients with new technology and devices. METHODS AND RESULTS: From April 2002 to August 2013, the ROTATE registry included all consecutive patients undergoing RA in 8 centres. They were divided into shorter lesion group (SLG, lesions < 25 mm) and longer lesion group (LLG, lesions ≥ 25 mm). The angiographic success (AS) was the primary end point. Procedural complications (PC), a composite end point of procedural perforation, slow flow/no flow, and in-hospital major acute cardiovascular events (MACE), were secondary end points, along with death, nonfatal MI, target lesion revascularization, and MACE during follow-up. Sensitivity analysis was performed according to generation of DES. 1186 patients were included: 51.5% in SLG and 48.4% in LLG. Mean age was 70.4 ± 9.3 years, 64.5% were male. AS and PC did not differ between the two groups (93% vs 91%, p = 0.24 and 9.8 vs 9.4%, p = 0.84). During follow-up (27.6 ± 22.9 months), MACE did not differ between the two groups (28% vs 29.1%, p = 0.95). At multivariate analysis chronic kidney disease, male gender increased risk of MACE (HR 1.94, IQR 1.29-2.0, p = 0.01, HR 0.52, IQR 0.34-0.79, p = 0.01) while second-generation DES seemed protective (HR 0.53, IQR 0.31-0.88, p = 0.02). Data were confirmed at sensitivity analysis for second-generation DES (759 pts, 63.9%). No differences were found in this subpopulation between the two groups in term of AS, PC, and long-term MACE (93.6% vs 93.5%, p = 0.28, 11.9% vs 9.4%, p = 0.32 and 25.5% vs 23.9%, p = 0.72, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Treating coronary lesions ≥ 25 mm length with RA does not impact short- and long-term outcome, in particular, in patients with second-generation DES.