Comparison of long-term outcome in patients with calcified stenosis treated with intravascular lithotripsy or with modified balloon angioplasty: a propensity score-adjusted study

BACKGROUND: The aim of this two-center, all-comers registry was to compare the effectiveness and safety of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) to that of modified balloon angioplasty (MB). MB angioplasty using a cutting or scoring balloon is commonly used in patients with calcified coronary arteries. IVL is a new technology for lesion preparation. This is the first study to compare MB with IVL. METHODS: The cohort included all patients treated by MB angioplasty or IVL between 2019 and 2021. The primary endpoint was strategy success (<20% residual stenosis). The secondary endpoint was long-term safety outcomes [cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), target lesion failure/revascularization (TVR)]. Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) was performed in all patients. Primary and secondary endpoints were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) for treatment effect estimation. RESULTS: A total of n = 86 patients were treated by IVL and n = 92 patients by MB angioplasty. The primary endpoint was reached in 152 patients (85.4%). Patients in the IVL group had less residual stenosis (5.8% vs. 22.8%; p = 0.001) in QCA. Weighted multivariable regression analysis revealed that IVL had a significant positive effect on reaching the primary endpoint of strategy success [odds ratio (OR) 24.58; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 7.40–101.86; p = 0.001]. In addition, severe calcification was shown to result in a lower probability of achieving the primary endpoint (OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.02–0.24; p = 0.001). During the follow-up period (450 days) there was no difference in cardiovascular mortality rate [IVL (n = 5) 2.8% vs. MB (n = 3) 1.7%; p = 0.129]. Patients with unstable angina at the time of the index procedure had the highest probability of cardiovascular death [hazard ratio (HR) 7.136; 95% CI 1.248–40.802; p = 0.027]. No differences were found in long-term rates of AMI (IVL 1.7% vs. MB 2.8%; p = 0.399; IVL HR 2.73; 95% CI 0.4–17.0; p = 0.281) or TVR (IVL 5.6% vs. MB 9%; p = 0.186; IVL HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.277–2.166; p = 0.626). CONCLUSION: IVL leads to a significantly better angiographic intervention outcome compared to MB angioplasty in our cohort. During long-term follow-up, no differences in cardiovascular mortality, rate of acute myocardial infarction, or target lesion failure/revascularization were observed.