Mohsin Chowdhury1, Eric A Secemsky2. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 185 Pilgrim Road, Baker 4, Boston, MA, 02215, USA. 2. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 185 Pilgrim Road, Baker 4, Boston, MA, 02215, USA. esecemsk@bidmc.harvard.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Calcified atheroma is frequently encountered in peripheral vascular intervention. Standard treatment with balloon and/or stenting alone does poorly in these cases due to vessel recoil, suboptimal luminal gain, and inadequate stent expansion. In light of the above challenges with angioplasty and stenting for PAD, endovascular atherectomy has emerged as a novel technology for atheroma treatment and removal, offering the benefits of surgical endarterectomy in a minimally invasive percutaneous approach. This review outlines the endovascular atherectomy devices available in clinical practice to date, compares and contrasts their mode of action, summarizes the relevant published data on indication and role of atherectomy over other treatment modalities for PAD, and discusses the future prospective on this emerging technology. RECENT FINDINGS: Currently, there are host of peripheral atherectomy devices available with unique mechanism of action and relative advantages and disadvantages. Despite these recent technological advancements, there remains a paucity of data from well-designed studies regarding the superiority of atherectomy as an adjunctive treatment versus standard treatment with balloon and stenting. Emerging data have supported its use to improve patency rates in conjunction with drug-coated balloons. Although associated risks, including distal embolization and perforation, are often marginal, the cost of these devices to the healthcare system necessitates further investment in to establishing level 1 data to support their use. Peripheral atherectomy has the potential to improve limb-related outcomes, potentially through reduced need for bail-out scaffolds and improved drug uptake. Nonetheless, further investment in the evidence foundation supporting these devices versus standard practices is required.
PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Calcified atheroma is frequently encountered in peripheral vascular intervention. Standard treatment with balloon and/or stenting alone does poorly in these cases due to vessel recoil, suboptimal luminal gain, and inadequate stent expansion. In light of the above challenges with angioplasty and stenting for PAD, endovascular atherectomy has emerged as a novel technology for atheroma treatment and removal, offering the benefits of surgical endarterectomy in a minimally invasive percutaneous approach. This review outlines the endovascular atherectomy devices available in clinical practice to date, compares and contrasts their mode of action, summarizes the relevant published data on indication and role of atherectomy over other treatment modalities for PAD, and discusses the future prospective on this emerging technology. RECENT FINDINGS: Currently, there are host of peripheral atherectomy devices available with unique mechanism of action and relative advantages and disadvantages. Despite these recent technological advancements, there remains a paucity of data from well-designed studies regarding the superiority of atherectomy as an adjunctive treatment versus standard treatment with balloon and stenting. Emerging data have supported its use to improve patency rates in conjunction with drug-coated balloons. Although associated risks, including distal embolization and perforation, are often marginal, the cost of these devices to the healthcare system necessitates further investment in to establishing level 1 data to support their use. Peripheral atherectomy has the potential to improve limb-related outcomes, potentially through reduced need for bail-out scaffolds and improved drug uptake. Nonetheless, further investment in the evidence foundation supporting these devices versus standard practices is required.
Authors: James F McKinsey; Thomas Zeller; Krishna J Rocha-Singh; Michael R Jaff; Lawrence A Garcia Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Rebecca E Scully; Dean J Arnaoutakis; Ann DeBord Smith; Marcus Semel; Louis L Nguyen Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2017-08-25 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: F Gerry R Fowkes; Victor Aboyans; Freya J I Fowkes; Mary M McDermott; Uchechukwu K A Sampson; Michael H Criqui Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2016-11-17 Impact factor: 32.419
Authors: A T Hirsch; M H Criqui; D Treat-Jacobson; J G Regensteiner; M A Creager; J W Olin; S H Krook; D B Hunninghake; A J Comerota; M E Walsh; M M McDermott; W R Hiatt Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-09-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: M M McDermott; P Greenland; K Liu; J M Guralnik; M H Criqui; N C Dolan; C Chan; L Celic; W H Pearce; J R Schneider; L Sharma; E Clark; D Gibson; G J Martin Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-10-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Peter A Soden; Sara L Zettervall; Thomas Curran; Ageliki G Vouyouka; Philip P Goodney; Joseph L Mills; John W Hallett; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: F Gerald R Fowkes; Diana Rudan; Igor Rudan; Victor Aboyans; Julie O Denenberg; Mary M McDermott; Paul E Norman; Uchechukwe K A Sampson; Linda J Williams; George A Mensah; Michael H Criqui Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 79.321