Planned vs. rescue rotational atherectomy in severe coronary calcification: procedural complications and one-year clinical outcomes
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 21, 2026

Catheter Ablation in Combination With Left Atrial Appendage Closure for Atrial Fibrillation
Published on: February 26, 2013
Xiaogang Liu1, Lei Wan1, Yufeng Liu1
1Department of Cardiology, Wuhan Fourth Hospital, Wuhan, China.
Insights
Planned rotational atherectomy (pRA) and rescue rotational atherectomy (rRA) both show similar one-year outcomes for treating severe coronary calcification. However, rescue RA is linked to increased procedural complications and longer procedure times compared to planned RA.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Interventional Cardiology
- Vascular Medicine
Background:
- Current guidelines suggest rotational atherectomy (RA) as a critical intervention for managing calcified or fibrotic coronary lesions.
- Severe coronary stenosis and calcification pose significant challenges during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
- The comparative outcomes of planned RA (pRA) versus rescue RA (rRA) require further investigation.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the procedural and one-year clinical outcomes of planned RA (pRA) versus rescue RA (rRA) in patients undergoing PCI for severe coronary stenosis and calcification.
Main Methods:
- A total of 111 patients undergoing RA were retrospectively analyzed and stratified into pRA (n=84) or rRA (n=27) groups.
- Data collected included baseline characteristics, lesion details, procedural parameters, complications, and one-year major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE).
- Statistical analysis, including multivariable logistic regression, was used to compare outcomes between the groups.
Main Results:
- The rRA group required more pre-dilation balloons, had a higher incidence of coronary artery dissection, and consumed more contrast agent.
- Contrast-induced nephropathy and procedure duration were significantly higher in the rRA group.
- Multivariable analysis identified rRA as an independent predictor of periprocedural complications (aOR=2.83; P=0.048), despite similar one-year MACCE rates between groups (pRA 3.7% vs. rRA 4.8%; P=1.00).
Conclusions:
- Rescue RA is associated with increased procedural complications, longer procedure times, and higher contrast agent utilization compared to planned RA.
- Despite higher procedural risks, rescue RA demonstrates comparable one-year MACCE rates to planned RA.
- These findings suggest that while RA is effective in both planned and rescue scenarios, careful consideration of procedural risks is warranted for rescue RA.
Objective:
Current guidelines recommend rotational atherectomy (RA) as a rescue treatment for calcified or fibrotic lesions that cannot be fully expanded before stent implantation. Present study compared the procedural and one-year clinical outcome of planned (pRA) or rescue RA (rRA) for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with severe coronary stenosis and calcification.
Methods:
A total of 111 consecutive patients who underwent RA at the Fourth Hospital of Wuhan from July 2021 to June 2023 were enrolled. The general clinical data, coronary artery lesion characteristics, procedural characteristics, complication rate and major cerebral and cardiovascular event [MACCE, cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), target vessel revascularization or acute ischemic stroke] rate at one year after procedure were compared between the two groups.
Results:
According to the timing of initiation of RA, patients were stratified into pRA group (n = 84) or rRA group (n = 27). Baseline clinical characteristics were similar between the two groups. The number of stents implanted was similar in the two groups. The rRA group required more pre-dilation balloons (1.7 ± 0.7 vs. 3.4 ± 0.5, P < 0.001), exhibited a higher rate of coronary artery dissection (29.6% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.02) and consumed a larger volume of contrast (189.8 ± 59 ml vs. 139.9 ± 46 ml, P < 0.001). Additionally, the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy was significantly greater in the rRA group (29.6% vs. 9.5%, P = 0.01), and the procedure duration was markedly longer in this group compared to the pRA group (91.5 ± 24.3 min vs. 77.9 ± 25.2 min, P < 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression identified rRA as an independent predictor of periprocedural complications (adjusted OR = 2.83; 95% CI:1.01-7.99; P = 0.048). However, 1-year MACCE rates showed no intergroup difference (pRA 3.7% vs. rRA 4.8%; P = 1.00). No significant difference in the secondary endpoints of non-cardiac death, angina pectoris, heart failure, and cardiovascular rehospitalization were observed between the two groups.
Conclusion:
rRA is related with higher procedural complication rates, procedure time, and contrast agent dose compared with pRA, but has similar low MACCE rate as pRA at one year after procedure.
Related Concept Videos
Cardiomyopathy II: Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
Cardiomyopathy VII: Pre and Post Operative Nursing Management
Peripheral Artery Disease V: Postoperative Nursing Management
Aneurysm III: Interprofessional Care
Varicose Veins II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care

