ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Balancing innovation and safety in percutaneous treatment of coronary artery calcification.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary artery calcification (CAC) is an independent predictor of adverse outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Under-preparation of calcified plaque predisposes to stent under-expansion, mal-apposition, restenosis, and stent thrombosis, while over-aggressive debulking strategies carry risk of dissection, perforation, and no-reflow. The interventional armamentarium for calcium modification has expanded from high-pressure and non-high pressure specialty balloons including intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) to dedicated atherectomy devices i.e., rotational atherectomy (RA), orbital atherectomy (OA), and excimer laser coronary atherectomy (ELCA), each with a distinct mechanism, evidence base, and risk profile. Additionally, comprehensive assessment of coronary calcium is central to guiding lesion preparation and selecting treatment strategy, with IVUS and OCT providing detailed intravascular characterisation, and CT emerging as a complementary non-invasive tool for procedural planning. Appropriate procedural planning and judicious selection of calcium-modification tools are paramount to maximising procedural safety, minimising complications, and improving clinical outcomes. This review summarizes the pathophysiology of CAC, describes each modification technique, synthesizes the pivotal and recent randomised evidence, outlines current guideline position, and proposes a practical framework for balancing procedural innovation against patient safety. Current evidence supports an individualized, imaging-guided approach to calcium modification. Balloon-based strategies, IVL, atherectomy, and ELCA each have specific strengths and limitations, and no modality has demonstrated universal superiority across lesion subsets. Atherectomy and laser remain important for selected uncrossable, undilatable, or highly resistant lesions, whereas IVL and specialty balloons may provide effective alternatives in appropriately selected crossable lesions. Evidence for many technologies is stronger for procedural and imaging endpoints than for long-term clinical 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.