Comparison of intravascular lithotripsy and rotational atherectomy for the treatment of heavily calcified coronary lesions: the STIFF (<underline>S</underline>tenoses with calcificaTIon treated with angioplasty e<underline>FF</underline>ected with dedicated interventional tools) study

Background Percutaneous coronary interventions in heavily calcified coronary lesions are associated with technical difficulties and the worse prognosis. Lesion preparation is important to reduce complications and improve outcomes. The aim of this study is to compare the results of rotational atherectomy (RA) and intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) at achieving optimal stent implantation using intravascular ultrasound criteria. Methods Retrospective, single-center study comparing patients with heavily calcified coronary lesions that underwent percutaneous coronary interventions using RA or IVL. Results In total25 patients (13 in the RA group and 12 in the IVL group) were included. Reference vessel diameter was similar between the groups [2.59 (2.51-3.63) mm in the RA group vs. 2.79 (2.59-3.16) mm in the IVL group; P = 0.89], as were minimal lumen area [1.02 (0.80-1.23) mm vs. 1.40 (1.01-1.40) mm; P = 0.43] and diameter stenosis [60.4% (52.3-72.3) vs. 56.1% (47.8-61.3); P = 0.56). The final minimal lumen area was significantly larger in the IVL group [7.6 mm2 (5.8-8.6) vs. 5.4 mm2 (4.5-6.2); P = 0.01] as were lumen area gain [4.1 mm2 (2.6-5.9) vs. 2.3 mm2 (1.4-3.6); P = 0.01] and final stent volume [491.2 mm3 (372.2-729.8) vs. 326.2 mm3 (257.1-435.4); P = 0.03]. In the RA group, 69.2% of the patients achieved the preestablished intravascular ultrasound-based criteria for successful stent implantation, vs. 100% of the patients in the IVL group (P = 0.04). Conclusion Patients in the IVL group achieved the Intravascular Ultrasound Versus Angiography-Guided Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation trial criteria of successful stent implantation more frequently than those treated with RA.