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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sakakura, Kenichi, Taniguchi, Yousuke, Yamamoto, Kei, Tsukui, Takunori, Seguchi, Masaru, Wada, Hiroshi, Momomura, Shin-ichi, Fujita, Hideo
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