ReviewThe Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology2026
Intravascular lithotripsy versus rotational atherectomy for coronary atherosclerosis calcification: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntravascular lithotripsy (IVL) is a novel calcium modification strategy with little evidence of efficacy compared to widely used rotational atherectomy (RA).
aimsWe sought to compare the efficacy and safety level between IVL and RA in moderate-to-severe coronary artery calcification (CAC).
methodsWe searched three databases until March 2025 for eligible observational studies and randomized controlled trials. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac event (MACE) while secondary endpoints were clinical outcomes, periprocedural complication, and procedural outcomes. Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio (RR) was used for dichotomous endpoints, and inverse variance mean difference (MD) for continuous variables, both with 95% confidence interval (CI).
resultsSeven observational studies and two randomized clinical trials (RCT) with 968 patients were included; 418 IVL-treated patients and 550 RA-treated patients. IVL is associated with lower risk of MACE (IVL 1.5% vs. RA 5.3%; RR: 0.34 CI: 0.13-0.87) and all-cause mortality (IVL 1.6% vs. RA 5.4%; RR: 0.35 CI: 0.15-0.81) in in-hospital outcome. However, assessed with longer follow-up, IVL developed comparable risk of MACE (IVL 4.3% vs. RA 7.7%; RR 0.70 CI: 0.42-1.18) compared to RA while all-cause mortality remained lower in IVL (2.5% vs. 7.0%; RR: 0.41 CI: 0.22-0.78). No significant differences were observed in the risk of myocardial infarction (p = 0.58), nor in the risk of dissection (p = 0.52), perforation (p = 0.22), or slow/no-reflow (p = 0.07). IVL likewise demonstrated comparable procedural performance, including procedural success, angiographic success, fluoroscopy duration, and procedural time.
conclusionIVL has similar outcomes to RA in terms of procedure outcomes and periprocedural complications. However, IVL is associated with lower all-cause mortality and MACE specifically in short term outcomes.
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.