2021
DOI: 10.33963/kp.15962
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Rotational atherectomy and intravascular lithotripsy: two methods versus a single lesion

Abstract: This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), allowing third parties to download articles and share them with others, provided the original work is properly cited, not changed in any way, distributed under the same license, and used for noncommercial purposes only.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

5
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
(1 reference statement)
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Rota-lithotripsy is a novel bail-out strategy used for resistant lesions. Only a few case reports [9][10][11] regarding this method are available. A high rate of clinical success was maintained despite the relatively high prevalence of patients with under-expansion of previously implanted stents in our registry (25.0% vs. 21.7%) [7].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rota-lithotripsy is a novel bail-out strategy used for resistant lesions. Only a few case reports [9][10][11] regarding this method are available. A high rate of clinical success was maintained despite the relatively high prevalence of patients with under-expansion of previously implanted stents in our registry (25.0% vs. 21.7%) [7].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a second line, they suggest using an atherectomy device (rotational, orbital, or laser). In case of failure, the use of the S-IVL device is proposed, although as it was mentioned before there are only a few reports [ 20 , 21 ] of such complex procedures. Such a stepwise approach allows for increasing the number of successful procedures, however, it increases the periprocedural complication rate.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…16 Both RA and IVL have been shown to successfully modify heavily calcified lesions. 17 However, there are certain situations when one tool may be chosen over the other such as the inability to pass the IVL balloon may preclude IVL use and severely tortuous vessels may preclude RA. Either way, plaque modification in heavily calcified vessels has a baseline high risk for periprocedural complications with the use of either device.…”
Section: Discussion and Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%