Current Treatment Modalities for Calcified Coronary Artery Disease: A Review Article Comparing Novel Intravascular...

The coronary artery calcium score is considered the most useful marker for predicting coronary events. The high score reflects heavy calcification in the vessel, which is more challenging to treat with the percutaneous intervention (PCI). To prepare this type of heavily calcified lesion intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) technology can be used prior to PCI, which is based on the concept of converting electrical energy into mechanical energy. It harmlessly and selectively disrupts both the shallow and deep deposits of calcium. The balloon-based catheters of this system emit sonic waves that transfer to the adjacent tissue resulting in improvement in vessel compliance with the slightest soft tissue loss. Therefore, making the treatment of calcified lesions more feasible, effective, and also simplify complex lesions. The lesions considered for lithotripsy-enhanced balloon dilation include calcified coronary lesions and peripheral vasculature lesions. This article reviews the use of IVL in calcified coronary artery disease, its advantages, and disadvantages while comparing it with other techniques like high-pressure balloons and rotational atherectomy devices. A thorough search of databases like PubMed and Google Scholar was performed, which uncovered 35 peer review articles. Keywords utilized in the data search were calcified coronary artery disease, coronary lithotripsy, calcification, and calcified atherosclerotic plaque. According to rotational atherectomy and intravascular lithotripsy trials, the latter was safer, mainly by decreasing atheromatous embolization risk. Deciphering these studies, it seems like IVL is better at parameters like procedural and clinical success rate, acute lumen gain, and less residual stenosis except in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which was better in rotational atherectomy (RA). However, when lesion crossings are present, the atherectomy technique is still considered as first-line therapy. In clinical practice, despite these encouraging data for treating calcified lesions, IVL is grossly underutilized because of substantial costs and perceived significant procedural risk effects on the cardiac rhythm like causing 'shock topics' and asynchronous cardiac pacing. More longer-term clinical data and extensive researches are required to validate its safety and efficiency.