Acute coronary syndrome – Still a valid contraindication to perform rotational atherectomy? Early and one-year outcomes. Issue 4 (April 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kübler, Piotr; Zimoch, Wojciech; Kosowski, Michał; Tomasiewicz, Brunon; Telichowski, Artur; Reczuch, Krzysztof
• Is Part Of: Journal of cardiology. Volume 71:Issue 4(2018)
• Page Start: 382
• Page End: 388
• Publication Date: 2018-04
• Subjects: Acute coronary syndrome -- Rotational atherectomy -- Calcified lesion; Cardiology -- Periodicals; 616.12
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2017.10.012
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0914-5087

Abstract

Highlights: One-fifth of rotational atherectomy candidates present with acute coronary syndrome. This group has higher clinical risk profile than stable angina patients. Mortality and complication rate in this group is higher in postprocedural period. Procedural success and 1-year outcomes is similar to elective patients. Rotational atherectomy should be considered in case of urgent indications. Abstract: Background: Rotational atherectomy (RA) is an acknowledged method of percutaneous treatment of highly calcified or fibrotic coronary lesions. However, using the rotablator system in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) remains controversial and is considered as a relative contraindication. The aim of our study was to assess in-hospital and 1-year outcomes in patients undergoing RA presenting with ACS, in comparison to elective RA procedures. Methods: This single-center observational study included all consecutive patients who underwent RA and PCI in our institution from April 2008 to October 2015. All patients were subsequently divided into two groups based on clinical presentation: stable angina group (SA) and ACS group. Primary endpoints were in-hospital and 1-year all-cause mortality and 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Secondary endpoints were procedural success and in-hospital complications. Results: The study included 207 patients, 164 (79%) in SA group and 43 (21%) in ACS group. In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with ACS (4.7% vs. 0%, p = 0.01). Procedural success was similar in both groups, 93% in ACS groups vs. 92.7% in SA group, p = 0.94. There were no significant differences in the rate of periprocedural complications (4.7% vs. 10.4%, p = 0.25), however postprocedural complications were more frequent in ACS group. At 1-year follow-up MACE rate and mortality were numerically higher, however statistically not significant (25.6% vs. 16.5%, p = 0.17 and 16.3% vs. 7.9%, p = 0.10; respectively). Conclusions: Despite higher mortality and complication rate in ACS group observed in postprocedural period, we found no significant difference in 1-year outcomes in comparison to elective patients. Procedural success of RA in ACS patients is similar to elective patients with SA and this procedure should be considered in case of urgent indications, if no other options of treatment exist.