ReviewCureus2025
Laser Versus Rotational Atherectomy in Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Procedural Success and Safety.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The evolution of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has improved the management of complex coronary lesions, particularly in heart failure patients. Laser atherectomy (LA) and rotational atherectomy (RA) are used to treat in-stent restenosis and calcified stenosis. Both techniques share similar indications and risks, but direct comparisons of their efficacy and safety are limited. This review examines procedural success, complication rates, and clinical outcomes of RA and LA. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched to retrieve studies between 2015 and 2025. Primary outcomes included procedural success, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and complications, including dissection and perforation. Random-effects models were used for analysis, with subgroup analyses based on lesion type and complexity. Fourteen studies were included in our meta-analysis (LA: 6 studies; RA: 8 studies). LA showed a procedural success rate of 96.3%, higher than RA (93.3%). The increase in lumen diameter after the procedure was statistically significantly higher in LA (mean difference: 6.71 mm²; 95% CI: (6.64-6.79); p < 0.001) as compared to RA (mean difference: -27.90 mm²; 95% CI: (-27.95,-27.85); p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed that RA worked better on severely calcified lesions that required stentablation. Complication rates were similar between the two techniques (1.2% for LA vs. 1.5% for RA; p = 0.21). LA provides better procedural success and lumen gain in heart failure patients with complex coronary lesions. However, RA remains superior for stentablation in non-dilatable, calcified lesions. Both techniques have similar safety profiles, suggesting the need for individualized treatment based on patient and lesion characteristics.
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.