Cargando…
Comparison of complications with a 1.25-mm versus a 1.5-mm burr for severely calcified lesions that could not be crossed by an intravascular ultrasound catheter
Since intravascular imaging such as intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) can provide useful information for rotational atherectomy (RA), intravascular imaging should be attempted before RA. However, some calcified lesions do not allow imaging catheters to cross before RA. Although small burrs (1.25 mm or...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Japan
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7295824/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31327122 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12928-019-00606-9 |
_version_ | 1783546721918255104 |
---|---|
author | Sakakura, Kenichi Taniguchi, Yousuke Yamamoto, Kei Tsukui, Takunori Seguchi, Masaru Wada, Hiroshi Momomura, Shin-ichi Fujita, Hideo |
author_facet | Sakakura, Kenichi Taniguchi, Yousuke Yamamoto, Kei Tsukui, Takunori Seguchi, Masaru Wada, Hiroshi Momomura, Shin-ichi Fujita, Hideo |
author_sort | Sakakura, Kenichi |
collection | PubMed |
description | Since intravascular imaging such as intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) can provide useful information for rotational atherectomy (RA), intravascular imaging should be attempted before RA. However, some calcified lesions do not allow imaging catheters to cross before RA. Although small burrs (1.25 mm or 1.5 mm) should be selected for such tight lesions, it is unknown whether a 1.25-mm burr or 1.5-mm burr is safer as the initial burr. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of complications with a 1.25-mm versus a 1.5-mm burr as the initial burr for IVUS-uncrossable lesions. This was a retrospective, single-center study. A total of 109 IVUS-uncrossable lesions were included, and were divided into a 1.25-mm group (n =52) and a 1.5-mm group (n =57). The incidence of slow flow just after RA was not different between the 2 groups (1.25-mm group: 25%, 1.5-mm group: 31.6%, P =0.45). The incidence of peri-procedural MI with slow flow was not different and equally low in the 2 groups (1.25-mm group: 1.9%, 1.5-mm group: 3.5%, P =0.61). The use of the 1.5-mm burr as the initial burr was not significantly associated with slow flow after controlling for chronic renal failure on hemodialysis and reference diameter (vs. 1.25-mm: OR 2.34, 95% CI 0.89–6.19, P =0.09). In conclusion, the incidence of complications following RA was comparable between the 1.25-mm and the 1.5-mm burrs as the initial burr for IVUS-uncrossable lesions. The present study provides insights into the selection of an appropriate burr for IVUS-uncrossable lesions. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7295824 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Springer Japan |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72958242020-06-19 Comparison of complications with a 1.25-mm versus a 1.5-mm burr for severely calcified lesions that could not be crossed by an intravascular ultrasound catheter Sakakura, Kenichi Taniguchi, Yousuke Yamamoto, Kei Tsukui, Takunori Seguchi, Masaru Wada, Hiroshi Momomura, Shin-ichi Fujita, Hideo Cardiovasc Interv Ther Original Article Since intravascular imaging such as intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) can provide useful information for rotational atherectomy (RA), intravascular imaging should be attempted before RA. However, some calcified lesions do not allow imaging catheters to cross before RA. Although small burrs (1.25 mm or 1.5 mm) should be selected for such tight lesions, it is unknown whether a 1.25-mm burr or 1.5-mm burr is safer as the initial burr. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of complications with a 1.25-mm versus a 1.5-mm burr as the initial burr for IVUS-uncrossable lesions. This was a retrospective, single-center study. A total of 109 IVUS-uncrossable lesions were included, and were divided into a 1.25-mm group (n =52) and a 1.5-mm group (n =57). The incidence of slow flow just after RA was not different between the 2 groups (1.25-mm group: 25%, 1.5-mm group: 31.6%, P =0.45). The incidence of peri-procedural MI with slow flow was not different and equally low in the 2 groups (1.25-mm group: 1.9%, 1.5-mm group: 3.5%, P =0.61). The use of the 1.5-mm burr as the initial burr was not significantly associated with slow flow after controlling for chronic renal failure on hemodialysis and reference diameter (vs. 1.25-mm: OR 2.34, 95% CI 0.89–6.19, P =0.09). In conclusion, the incidence of complications following RA was comparable between the 1.25-mm and the 1.5-mm burrs as the initial burr for IVUS-uncrossable lesions. The present study provides insights into the selection of an appropriate burr for IVUS-uncrossable lesions. Springer Japan 2019-07-20 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7295824/ /pubmed/31327122 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12928-019-00606-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Sakakura, Kenichi Taniguchi, Yousuke Yamamoto, Kei Tsukui, Takunori Seguchi, Masaru Wada, Hiroshi Momomura, Shin-ichi Fujita, Hideo Comparison of complications with a 1.25-mm versus a 1.5-mm burr for severely calcified lesions that could not be crossed by an intravascular ultrasound catheter |
title | Comparison of complications with a 1.25-mm versus a 1.5-mm burr for severely calcified lesions that could not be crossed by an intravascular ultrasound catheter |
title_full | Comparison of complications with a 1.25-mm versus a 1.5-mm burr for severely calcified lesions that could not be crossed by an intravascular ultrasound catheter |
title_fullStr | Comparison of complications with a 1.25-mm versus a 1.5-mm burr for severely calcified lesions that could not be crossed by an intravascular ultrasound catheter |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of complications with a 1.25-mm versus a 1.5-mm burr for severely calcified lesions that could not be crossed by an intravascular ultrasound catheter |
title_short | Comparison of complications with a 1.25-mm versus a 1.5-mm burr for severely calcified lesions that could not be crossed by an intravascular ultrasound catheter |
title_sort | comparison of complications with a 1.25-mm versus a 1.5-mm burr for severely calcified lesions that could not be crossed by an intravascular ultrasound catheter |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7295824/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31327122 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12928-019-00606-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sakakurakenichi comparisonofcomplicationswitha125mmversusa15mmburrforseverelycalcifiedlesionsthatcouldnotbecrossedbyanintravascularultrasoundcatheter AT taniguchiyousuke comparisonofcomplicationswitha125mmversusa15mmburrforseverelycalcifiedlesionsthatcouldnotbecrossedbyanintravascularultrasoundcatheter AT yamamotokei comparisonofcomplicationswitha125mmversusa15mmburrforseverelycalcifiedlesionsthatcouldnotbecrossedbyanintravascularultrasoundcatheter AT tsukuitakunori comparisonofcomplicationswitha125mmversusa15mmburrforseverelycalcifiedlesionsthatcouldnotbecrossedbyanintravascularultrasoundcatheter AT seguchimasaru comparisonofcomplicationswitha125mmversusa15mmburrforseverelycalcifiedlesionsthatcouldnotbecrossedbyanintravascularultrasoundcatheter AT wadahiroshi comparisonofcomplicationswitha125mmversusa15mmburrforseverelycalcifiedlesionsthatcouldnotbecrossedbyanintravascularultrasoundcatheter AT momomurashinichi comparisonofcomplicationswitha125mmversusa15mmburrforseverelycalcifiedlesionsthatcouldnotbecrossedbyanintravascularultrasoundcatheter AT fujitahideo comparisonofcomplicationswitha125mmversusa15mmburrforseverelycalcifiedlesionsthatcouldnotbecrossedbyanintravascularultrasoundcatheter |