ArticlePostepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology2025
Intravascular lithotripsy for calcified left main coronary artery disease: procedural outcomes and two-year clinical follow-up.
Article in Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology, 2025. 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.
- Are we comparing equivalent procedures? Long-term intravascular lithotripsy outcomes in left main versus non-left main percutaneous coronary intervention.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2026Article
- Reply to the letter on "Intravascular lithotripsy for calcified left main coronary artery disease: procedural outcomes and two-year clinical follow-up".Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) has a strong safety and efficacy profile for managing calcified coronary lesions during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Nevertheless, evidence on its application in left main (LM) disease remains scarce. Aim: This study aimed to evaluate procedural success, efficacy, safety, and two-year clinical outcomes of IVL in LM PCI. Material and methods: The analysis included 53 patients who underwent LM PCI using the Shockwave C2 and C2+ IVL systems beginning in April 2020. Outcomes were compared with those of 148 patients who underwent non-LM PCI during the same period. Results: The two groups were similar in age. Non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) (43.4% vs. 23.6%; Conclusions: In LM PCI, IVL demonstrates a favorable safety and efficacy profile, achieving high technical success rates and long-term outcomes, including MACE rates comparable to those observed in non-LM PCI.
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.