Observational studyCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions2025
Intravascular Lithotripsy in Acute Coronary Syndromes: Procedural and One-Year Clinical Outcomes From the BENELUX-IVL Registry.
Observational study in Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and safety of the SoniCracker intravascular lithotripsy device for severely calcified coronary lesions: the LEAD-FIM study from China.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Trial
- Coronary Intravascular Lithotripsy in Clinical Practice.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Intravascular lithotripsy for calcified coronary lesions: contemporary trends and long-term outcomes in acute myocardial infarction patients - insights from the CLEAR registry.Cardiology journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite the excellent success and safety of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) in heavily calcified lesions, evidence in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) remains limited.
aimsThis study aimed to evaluate the procedural and clinical outcomes of IVL in heavily calcified ACS.
methodsPatients who underwent IVL between 2019 and 2024 from the ongoing prospective BENELUX registry were eligible for inclusion. Patients were therefore classified in ACS and chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) groups. The primary technical endpoint was angiographic success < 30%, defined as the successful delivery of the IVL catheter across the target lesion and delivery of IVL pulses without angiographic complications and residual target lesion less than 30%. The primary clinical endpoint was in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization.
resultsA total of 454 patients underwent IVL, with 251 (55.3%) treated for CCS and 203 (44.7%) for ACS. The median SYNTAX score (p-value 0.17), the need for inotropes (p-value 0.09), and the use of mechanical circulatory support (p-value 0.71) were similar between CCS and ACS groups. Comparable angiographic success (< 30% residual stenosis) was observed between CCS and ACS groups (90.1% vs. 91.1%, p = 0.69). MACE were similar across groups during hospital stays (CCS 1.6% vs. ACS 3.0%, p = 0.33), at 30 days (CCS 3.2% vs. ACS 3.9%, p = 0.86), and at 12-month follow-up (CCS 8.4% vs. ACS 7.9%, p = 0.91).
conclusionIVL provides high procedural success and consistent clinical outcomes in both CCS and ACS cases.
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.