ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2024
A comparative study of shockwave intravascular lithotripsy and conventional percutaneous coronary intervention in the treatment of severe coronary artery calcification lesions.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Performance of Calcium-Modification Strategies for Coronary Lesions: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.Cardiovascular therapeutics · 2026Article
- Percutaneous Coronary Interventions for Calcified Lesions: A Systematic Review with Meta-analyses of Randomised Trials.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) in the treatment of severe coronary artery calcification (CAC) lesions.
methodsIn this study, we selected patients diagnosed with severe CAC lesions confirmed by coronary angiography (CAG) who were hospitalized in Yulin First People's Hospital between December 2021 and December 2022 and required percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Using a random number table, we divided all patients into the IVL group and the PCI group in the order of interventional therapy. We compared both groups in terms of the surgical success rate, intraoperative manipulation characteristics, procedural complication, and cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).
results(1) There were no differences in the surgical success rate, incidence of MACE, and occurrence of procedural complication between the two groups; (2) Compared with the conventional PCI group, patients in the IVL group used fewer predilatation balloons, and the difference was statistically significant (all P < 0.05); (3) Compared with the conventional PCI group, patients in the IVL group had lesser surgery time and lesser radiation time, with lesser proportion of patients who were assisted with stent implantation using coronary artery rotational atherectomy, and this difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05); (4) The mean stent diameter and length in the IVL group was greater than those in the conventional PCI group but the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05).
conclusionIn this study, we found that IVL was a highly safe and effective procedure in the treatment of severe CAC lesions that did not increase the surgery and radiation time, and it could also reduce the use of predilatation balloons, thus improving the management of CAC lesions. Thus, IVL can be a novel choice in treating severe CAC lesions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.