Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39049591›Full record

ReviewTherapeutic advances in cardiovascular disease

Coronary intravascular lithotripsy in contemporary practice: challenges and opportunities in coronary intervention.

Ankush Gupta, Abhinav Shrivastava, Jaskaran Singh Dugal, Sanya Chhikara, Rajesh Vijayvergiya, Navreet Singh, Ajit Chandrakant Mehta, Nalin Kumar Mahesh, Ajay Swamy

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Therapeutic advances in cardiovascular disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. In-hospital outcomes of intravascular lithotripsy compared to rotational atherectomy and cutting/scoring balloon angioplasty.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Intravascular Lithotripsy for Calcific Coronary Bifurcations: Procedural Success and 1-Year Clinical Outcomes.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2025
    Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Ankush GuptaProfessor of Medicine & Interventional Cardiologist, Department of Cardiology, Army Institute of Cardio Thoracic Sciences, Golibar Maidan, Pune 411040, India.ORCID 0000-0003-0631-8661
Abhinav ShrivastavaDepartment of Cardiology, Fortis Hospital, Kangra, India.
Jaskaran Singh DugalDepartment of Cardiology, Jehangir Hospital, Pune, India.
Sanya ChhikaraDepartment of Medicine, Jacobi Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA.
Rajesh VijayvergiyaDepartment of Cardiology, Advanced Cardiac Centre, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India.
Navreet SinghDepartment of Cardiology, Army Institute of Cardio Thoracic Sciences, Pune, India.
Ajit Chandrakant MehtaDepartment of Cardiology, Jehangir Hospital, Pune, India.
Nalin Kumar MaheshDepartment of Cardiology, St. Gregorios Medical Mission Hospital, Parumala, India.
Ajay SwamyDepartment of Cardiology, KIMS Hospitals Group, Secunderabad, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of calcified coronary arteries is associated with poor outcomes. Poorly modified calcified lesion hinders the stent delivery, disrupts drug-carrying polymer, impairs drug elution kinetics and results in under-expanded stent (UES). UES is the most common cause of acute stent thrombosis and in-stent restenosis after PCI of calcified lesions. Angiography has poor sensitivity for recognition and quantification of coronary calcium, thereby mandating the use of intravascular imaging. Intravascular imaging, like intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography, has the potential to accurately identify and quantify the coronary calcium and to guide appropriate modification device before stent placement. Available options for the modification of calcified plaque include modified balloons (cutting balloon, scoring balloon and high-pressure balloon), atherectomy devices (rotational atherectomy and orbital atherectomy) and laser atherectomy. Coronary intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) is the newest addition to the tool box for calcified plaque modification. It produces the acoustic shockwaves, which interact with the coronary calcium to cause multiplanar fractures. These calcium fractures increase the vessel compliance and result in desirable minimum stent areas. Coronary IVL has established its safety and efficacy for calcified lesion in series of Disrupt CAD trials. Its advantages over atherectomy devices include ease of use on workhorse wire, ability to modify deep calcium, no debris embolization causing slow flow or no-flow and minimal thermal injury. It is showing promising results in modification of difficult calcified lesion subsets such as calcified nodule, calcified left main bifurcation lesions and chronic total occlusion. In this review, authors will summarize the mechanism of action for IVL, its role in contemporary practice, evidence available for its use, its advantages over atherectomy devices and its imaging insight in different calcified lesion scenarios.

Indexed as

Coronary Artery DiseaseLithotripsyVascular CalcificationCoronary VesselsHumansPercutaneous Coronary InterventionPlaque, AtheroscleroticRisk FactorsStentsTreatment OutcomeUltrasonography, Interventionalcalcified coronary artery diseasecalcified left maincalcified nodulecoronary IVLintravascular lithotripsyshockwave for coronary calcium

Identifiers

PMID39049591
PMCPMC11273719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.