Breaking the deadlock of calcified coronary artery lesions: A contemporary review

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of severely calcified lesions is known to result in lower procedural success rates, higher complication rates, and worse long-term clinical outcomes compared to noncalcified lesions. Adequate lesion preparation through calcium modification is crucial in ensuring procedural success and reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes. There are numerous calcium modification devices currently available whose usefulness depends on the nature of the calcific disease and its anatomical distribution. It can be challenging for the interventionists to decide which device is best suited for their patient. There is also emerging evidence for intravascular imaging in guiding selection of calcium modification devices using parameters such as calcium distribution and depth that directly impact on procedural success and clinical outcomes. In this review we aim to discuss the pathophysiology of coronary calcification, evaluate strategies and technologies of calcium modification and propose an A-M-A-S-A algorithm in managing calcified coronary lesions.

Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bivalirudin Versus Heparin on Myocardial Ischemic and Bleeding Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Bivalirudin is an alternative to unfractionated heparin (UFH) anticoagulation during percutaneous coronary intervention. Previously, we have reported clinical benefit on major bleeding in favor of bivalirudin compared with UFH monotherapy but inconclusive results on mortality. Controversial data have been reported in the last 2 years. We conducted an updated meta-analysis including randomized trials and observational studies, which evaluated ischemic and bleeding outcomes for bivalirudin compared with UFH-only during percutaneous coronary intervention. We included 18 observational studies and 12 randomized trials published from 2003 to 2015. Primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events within 30 days including death, myocardial infarction, and urgent revascularization and stent thrombosis, major bleeding, and transfusion. Overall, we found a significant risk reduction with bivalirudin for major bleeding (odds ratio [OR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49 to 0.71, p <0.0001) and for transfusion (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.95, p = 0.01) and similar risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.12, p = 0.80). However, there was a substantial increased risk of stent thrombosis associated with bivalirudin (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.08, p = 0.009). No impact on mortality was found. Meta-regression analyses on major bleeding suggested that bivalirudin was more effective than UFH at doses >60 IU/kg and independent of radial access. In conclusion, compared with UFH monotherapy, bivalirudin remains associated with less bleeding risk but higher stent thrombosis risk. Further study remains required to define its role in current antithrombotic armamentarium.

Treatment of calcified coronary artery lesions

Heavily calcified coronary plaques represent a complex lesion subset and a challenge to the interventional cardiologist, as they are often resistant to simple plaque modification with conventional balloon angioplasty. Inadequate plaque modification can lead to stent underdeployment, which itself predisposes to in-stent restenosis and stent thrombosis. Over the years, a number of mechanical devices ranging from modified angioplasty balloons to atherectomy devices have become available in order to tackle such lesions. Here we review these devices concentrating on the evidence behind their use.