ArticleJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions2025
Shockwave Versus Surgical Endarterectomy for Calcified Severe Common Femoral Artery Stenosis: Design and Rationale of the SHOCKIFY Trial.
Article in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Calcified atherosclerotic disease in the lower extremities can lead to severe symptoms, including lifestyle-limiting claudication and chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Although surgical endarterectomy remains the gold standard treatment for symptomatic common femoral artery (CFA) stenosis, intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) combined with a drug-coated balloon (DCB) has shown potential as a safe and effective alternative. However, the long-term efficacy of this approach is not well-established. Methods: The SHOCKwave angioplasty versus surgical endarterectomy for severe calcified common femoral artery stenosis: effIcacy/saFetY (SHOCKIFY) trial is a single-site, prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing IVL with DCB to surgical endarterectomy in the management of CFA stenosis. Eligible subjects will be randomized in a 1:1 manner to receive either IVL with DCB treatment or endarterectomy. The primary end points include 6-month safety, defined as freedom from perioperative death, major adverse cardiovascular events, and major adverse limb events, along with 1-year efficacy, measured by primary patency. Secondary end points include follow-up assessments at 30 days, 6 months, and 1 year for ankle-brachial index, Rutherford chronic limb-threatening ischemia classification, patient satisfaction, and quality of life metrics. Specifically, patency will be evaluated at 30 days and 6 months as part of the secondary end points. These metrics will be assessed through the Short Form-36 quality of life survey, the peripheral artery questionnaire, and the walking impairment questionnaire. Patient-reported outcomes will be analyzed at these follow-up intervals. Conclusions: This trial aimed to assess whether IVL with DCB is a viable, noninferior alternative to the traditional surgical endarterectomy, potentially offering a safer, minimally invasive option for CFA stenosis. The results may reform the future of CFA treatment guidelines by providing robust, randomized data on the clinical utility of IVL in managing complex vascular calcification.
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.