Review Article

Management of Calcified Coronary Lesions

Register or Login to View PDF Permissions
Permissions× For commercial reprint enquiries please contact Springer Healthcare: ReprintsWarehouse@springernature.com.

For permissions and non-commercial reprint enquiries, please visit Copyright.com to start a request.

For author reprints, please email rob.barclay@radcliffe-group.com.
Information image
Average (ratings)
No ratings
Your rating

Abstract

With an aging population, coronary calcification is increasingly encountered in modern day interventional practice. Unfortunately, it is associated with lower procedural success and higher rates of periprocedural complications, such as failure to deliver stents, perforations, dissections, and other major adverse cardiac events. Furthermore, suboptimal stent deployment in the setting of severe calcification is associated with both short and long-term major adverse cardiac events, including stent thrombosis, MI, in-stent restenosis, and target lesion revascularization. A variety of treatment options for these lesions exist, including specialized balloons, atherectomy, and intravascular lithotripsy. While there is currently no universally accepted algorithm for choosing between these treatment strategies, several different algorithms exist, and the optimization of these treatment regimens will continue to evolve in the coming years. This review aims to provide insights on the different therapeutic modalities and an understanding of the current body of evidence.

Disclosure:AB has received honoraria from Abiomed, Cardiovascular Solutions Inc., and Shockwave Medical. RR has received honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Shockwave Medical. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Received:

Accepted:

Published online:

Correspondence Details:Khaled Al-Shaibi, Cardiac Center, King Fahd Armed Forces Hospital, PO Box 9862, Jeddah 21159, Saudi Arabia. E: kfalshaibi@gmail.com

Open Access:

This work is open access under the CC-BY-NC 4.0 License which allows users to copy, redistribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes, provided the original work is cited correctly.

Initially thought to be a passive degenerative process, coronary artery calcification (CAC) is commonly indicative of advanced atherosclerosis.1,2 CAC is associated with decreased vascular compliance and increases the risk for adverse cardiovascular events.3

CAC becomes more prevalent with advancing age, and above age 70 years it is more frequently encountered in men than in women (90% versus 67%).4,5 Susceptibility to CAC is also higher in those with dyslipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and chronic kidney disease.6

With an aging population, CAC is increasingly encountered in modern-day interventional practice. Unfortunately, it is associated with lower procedural success and higher rates of periprocedural complications, such as failure to deliver stents, perforations, dissections, and other major adverse cardiac events (MACE).7 Furthermore, suboptimal stent deployment in the setting of severe calcification is associated with both short- and long-term MACE (stent thrombosis, MI, in-stent restenosis, and target lesion revascularization), thought to be because of suboptimal stent deployment and lower minimal stent areas.8

Histopathology of Coronary Artery Calcification

Intimal calcification is the predominant form of calcification seen in coronary arteries, as opposed to the medial calcification seen in peripheral artery disease. The process of CAC deposition starts with microcalcification as a result of pathological intimal thickening. Within the lipid pool, microcalcification occurs due to smooth muscle cell apoptosis and macrophage-derived matrix vesicles. Microcalcifications coalesce over time to form speckles and fragments, eventually forming sheets or plates of calcification. Fracture of calcified sheets results in nodular calcification.9 These calcified nodules may protrude into the lumen, leading to disruption of the endothelium and underlying collagen matrix resulting in coronary thrombosis, although the pathological mechanism whereby calcified nodules can lead to acute coronary syndrome account for only 2–7% of the incidence of acute coronary syndrome.10 The majority of acute coronary syndromes are because of fibroatheromas, thin cap fibroatheromas, and ruptured plaques, which tend to have large necrotic cores but minimal or no calcification. In contrast, healed ruptures or fibrocalcific plaque tend to have severe calcification – out of proportion to the necrotic core – and often present as stable coronary artery disease (CAD) with progressive luminal narrowing.11

Diagnostic Modalities

CAC is typically identified by fluoroscopy, CT coronary angiography (CTCA), intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), and/or optical coherence tomography (OCT).

Fluoroscopy

Fluoroscopic detection of CAC has been shown to have a sensitivity between 40% and 79% with a specificity between 52% and 95%.12–14 In patients with chronic total occlusions, Fujii et al. detected calcium using IVUS in 96% of patients, whereas it was only detected in 61% using fluoroscopy.15

Fluoroscopic grading of calcium during angiography is classified as follows: none or mild; moderate calcification noticed only during cardiac motion before contrast is injected; or severe if radiopacities are seen without cardiac motion, often withthe characteristic tram-line calcification.

CT Coronary Angiography

Currently, CTCA is the most commonly used non-invasive tool used to directly identify CAD, which includes an assessment for CAC. The coronary artery calcium score (CACS) was first reported by Agatston et al. and now is widely used to quantify the calcium burden in coronary arterial beds.16 The score is divided into three groups: 0–100, 101–400, and >400. Budoff et al. documented that patients with a CACS of >100 had a two- to five-times higher risk of suffering an acute coronary event in near-term follow-up.17 Large-scale observational studies have also supported the role of CACS in cardiovascular risk stratification, especially in patients who are at an intermediate risk of events.18–20

Figure 1: Patterns of Calcification by Intravascular Ultrasound Before and After Rotational Atherectomy

Article image

Intravascular Ultrasound

The IVUS beam is strongly reflected by calcium, resulting in a classical signature finding of hyperechoic (echo-dense) plaque that is brighter than the reference adventitia and casts a shadow over deeper arterial structures (Figure 1A). Furthermore, following plaque modification with either orbital atherectomy (OA) or rotational atherectomy (RA), the fractured calcium produces reverberations that occur because of multiple reflections from oscillations of ultrasound waves between the transducer and calcium segments, resulting in concentric arcs at reproducible distances (Figure 1B). The echo-dense plaque along with shadowing is highly sensitive and reverberations are highly specific. IVUS quantitatively assesses calcium according to the arc (measured in degrees) and length of calcium deposition. It is semi-quantitatively graded as absent or subtending into one, two, three, or four quadrants. On this basis, it is classified as: class I, 0–90°; class II, 90–180°; class III, 181–270°; and class IV, >270°. Quantitative gradation is based upon its location: superficial or deep lesion. Superficial is defined as when the leading edge of acoustic shadow lies within the shallow 50% of the plaque and media thickness, whereas deep lesion is dubbed as when the leading edge of acoustic shadow lies within deepest 50% of the plaque and media thickness.21 Furthermore, an IVUS scoring system has been developed that predicts stent under-expansion and hence identifies lesions that would benefit from plaque modification prior to stenting (Figure 2).22

Figure 2: Intravascular Ultrasound Scoring in Predicting Stent Under-expansion

Article image

Radiofrequency Intravascular Ultrasound

Presently, three radiofrequency IVUS (RF-IVUS) technologies have been validated in vitro with high sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value.23 Each of these technologies uses a different approach for tissue classification. Of these, IVUS Virtual Histology (IVUS-VH) (Volcano Corporation) is widely available.

Using a mathematical autoregression model, IVUS-VH software enables automated border contour detection by spectral analysis. After planimetry, tissue classification is performed for the intended plaque area. The four plaque components are color-coded as fibrous tissue (dark green), fibro-fatty tissue (light green), necrotic core (red), and dense calcium (white).24

The other two RF-IVUS technologies are iMAP (Boston Scientific) and integrated backscatter IVUS (Visiwave, Terumo).

Optical Coherence Tomography

OCT has a general operative principle similar to IVUS, but it differs from the latter by using infrared light instead of ultrasound. OCT tends to produce higher resolution intracoronary images compared with IVUS, at the cost of being less penetrative. The current maximum tissue penetration with OCT is approximately 1.5–3 mm; this results in non-visualization of certain arterial structures, including external elastic lamina. IVUS, on the other hand, has a penetration of 10 mm, enabling the measurement of plaque volume. With its higher resolution, OCT fares better in greater penetration of calcium, and hence can measure its thickness, area, and volume; this makes it possible for automated quantification of these parameters (Figure 3).25,26Table 1 highlights the differences between OCT and IVUS.

Figure 3: Types of Calcified Lesions

Article image

Comparison of Optical Coherence Tomography versus Intravascular Ultrasound and Classification of Calcified Coronary Lesion Severity Based on Both Modalities

Article image

An OCT-based calcium scoring system has also been developed, which helps identify CAC lesions that are at risk of stent under-expansion and would benefit from plaque modification prior to stent implantation. It is based on three parameters (a maximum calcium angle > or <180°; maximum calcium thickness > or <0.5 mm; and maximum calcium length > or <5 mm). With a calcium score of 4 (maximum angle >180°, maximum thickness >0.5 mm, and length >5 mm), there is a greater risk of stent under-expansion (Table 1), which would require plaque modification prior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).27

Treatment Modalities

In the presence of severe CAC, stent expansion is impeded and associated with adverse events such as stent thrombosis and restenosis.26 In a meta-analysis of 16 randomized control trials (RCTs), PCI with severe CAC was associated with higher mortality, higher rates of MI, and less frequent complete revascularization.28 Thus, severe CAC appears to be an independent predictor of poor prognosis.

The challenges of treating CAC have been addressed by various calcium-modification tools over the past two decades. These approaches work to ablate or fracture calcified plaques, leading to improved procedural success and improved stent expansion with larger minimal stent areas.

Balloon Angioplasty

The use of plain balloon catheters for dilatation of severe CAC lesions increases the likelihood of procedural failure and complications.29 The varying amount of calcification across the extent of the lesion causes nonuniform force application of balloon expansion on the vessel wall, increasing the risk for dissection, MI, and MACE.30 However, balloon dilation is typically the primary modality initially chosen to modify calcified coronary lesions. Non-compliant (NC) balloons are the first choice in mild to moderate cases of CAC. In these cases, balloon angioplasty should start with a smaller-sized balloon (balloon/artery ratio <1) with inflation pressure of 8 atm gradually escalated to 16–20 atm. Stent deployment is advised against in cases of lesion non-expansion.

In severe CAC, where the use of NC balloons as described above have failed to result in full balloon expansion, a double-layered OPN NC balloon (SIS Medical) can be used. These balloons can be inflated up to 40 atm, where a success rate of 75% has been reported in calcific non-dilatable lesions without significant adverse events.31 These OPN balloons have provided a new path for dilating calcific lesions as well as for under-expanded stents where other NC balloons were not able to produce desirable results. However, they are still limited by severe calcification and work best in cases where the calcium arc is <200° and calcium thickness is <6 mm.32

Modified Balloons (Cutting and Scoring Balloons)

Both cutting and scoring balloons can also be used to treat calcified coronary lesions. Cutting balloons (Boston Scientific) have three to four sharp metal microtome blades, which are mounted on a NC balloon that incises and scores the atheroma during inflation. The principle of these balloons is that they improve compliance of vessel by creating discreet lesions in the plaque, thereby ensuring controlled dissection, reducing the chance of recoil and allowing for greater expansion of the lesion.33,34 However, they do not remove calcium from the vessel wall. Cutting balloons are indicated in relatively short lesion lengths (20 mm), and the pressure of the balloon should not exceed beyond 12–14 atm to prevent embedding of blades into the vessel wall. However, these balloons are not recommended in class III–IV lesions as defined on intravascular imaging.35

The AngioSculpt Scoring balloon (AngioScore) is considered as an alternative to the cutting balloon. It contains a flexible nitinol scoring ribbon with three spiral struts that incise plaque on inflation. As it has a low crossing profile, this system is encouraged as a more flexible alternative to cutting balloons; however, no RCTs of the device have been reported.36

Another example of modified balloons is the Chocolate XD balloon (Teleflex). The balloon’s proprietary nitinol-constraining structure creates ‘pillows’ and ‘grooves’, which are designed to provide predictable, uniform, and atraumatic dilatation. Nevertheless, published data on its use in calcified CAD are limited (Supplementary Table 1).

Rotational Atherectomy

Lesions that cannot be crossed or expanded with conventional balloon angioplasty qualify for atherectomy.37 Based on differential cutting theory, rotational ablation tends to preferentially engage the rigid atheromatous plaque that is not able to deflect it, yet it preserves the integrity of the more flexible noncalcified vessel wall. The abraded plaque is degraded into smaller particles (<10 μm in diameter) and eventually cleared up by the reticuloendothelial system.38 The optimal burr size in comparison to the reference vessel diameter is 60–70%. When compared with aggressive burr sizing (burr : artery ratio >0.7), the use of smaller burr sizes diminishes angiographic complications and peri-procedural enzymatic leaks.39

RA alone has been associated with increased neo-intimal hyperplasia, and the need for repeat revascularization attributed to platelet activation and thermal injury.40,41 Current thin-strut drug eluting stent implantation after RA achieves a superior long-term outcomes.42 In the PREPARE-CALC trial, RA was compared with balloon angioplasty with modified balloons in highly calcified lesions and was demonstrated to be superior to balloon angioplasty with higher procedural success and superior stent expansion (Supplementary Table 1).43

Certain precautions are very important while using RA. The rotating burr should never be advanced close to the spring tip of the Rotawire as it can shear the spring tip off the distal end of the wire. The rotating burr should also not be allowed to remain stationary at one location in the artery; rather a gentle retraction and re-advancement (‘pecking’ movement) is needed to prevent dissection and welding.

Orbital Atherectomy

OA has a slightly different mechanism of action based on the principle of elliptical burr movement of the diamond-coated crown.44 The orbital diameter of the crown motion expands radially via centrifugal force while its elliptical orbit may allow blood flow around the crown during treatment. This theoretically helps in dispersing heat more efficiently than RA.45 Furthermore, unlike RA, which comes with different burr sizes (1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2.0, 2.25, 2.5 mm), OA comes in one size – a 1.25 mm crown. The atheroablative lumen size obtained depends on the chosen rotational speed and speed of crown advancement, with higher speeds and slower advancement generating larger ablative areas.44,45

The limited randomized data that compare RA and OA indicate that both modalities are comparable regarding both safety and efficacy, and the choice is down to operator preference and device availability (Supplementary Table 1).46

Laser Atherectomy

The mechanism of action of laser atherectomy involves a thermomechanical process. Ultraviolet B radiation is generated by the laser, which is then absorbed by protein and nucleic acid that transfers heat to water. This results in vaporizing intracellular water, thereby explosively lysing the cells along with generating stress waves. The resulting barotrauma is exploited to treat rigid and non-dilatable calcific coronary lesions.

Several RCTs have been conducted comparing the use of pulse wave laser with other currently available modalities, but none have shown benefit over conventional percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (Supplementary Table 1).47–49

Currently laser angioplasty has been recommended in seven types of lesions: long lesions, moderately calcific lesions, in-stent restenosis, saphenous venous graft lesions, ostial lesions, total occlusion, and non-dilatable lesions (some interventionalists reserve its use only for non-dilatable/non-crossable lesions).50

Intravascular Lithotripsy

Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) is a novel technique that has evolved from similar technology used for the treatment of ureterorenal calculi. This technology has been adapted for use in calcified arterial lesions with the Shockwave IVL catheter (Shockwave Medical).51 This device is a single-use, disposable catheter on which there are multiple spark gap-based lithotripsy emitters along the shaft of an integrated balloon. The balloon (sized 1:1 to vessel diameter), is filled with a 50:50 saline/contrast mixture (as ions are required for the generation of sparks), and is inflated to sub-nominal pressure (4 atm), which is enough to provide apposition with vessel wall. This establishes an effective fluid–tissue interface, which facilitates efficient transmission of an acoustic pressure wave (1 pulse/second) that travels circumferentially through the vessel wall, inducing both superficial and deep calcium plaque fractures. This results in enhanced vessel compliance, reduced fibroelastic recoil, and facilitation of stent expansion and luminal gain.52

Compared with balloon-based technologies (high-pressure NC and cutting/scoring balloons), IVL has the advantage of using acoustic shockwaves delivered by semi-compliant balloons at a sub nominal pressure, thereby avoiding high-pressure balloon-induced barotrauma. Athero-ablative technologies (RA or OA) have their own limitations, which include limited therapy to deeper calcium, thermal injury, and a higher risk of vascular complications. Compared with other options, IVL minimizes the risk for vascular complications and results in fractures in both superficial and deep calcium.

Initially approved for peripheral vascular applications in 2016, IVL gained Food and Drug Administration approval for coronary application in 2021 based on the DISRUPT II and III trials.53–55 The safety and effectiveness of IVL have been reported across multiple clinical studies wherein severely calcified coronary and peripheral arteries were treated, and IVL now plays an important role in current clinical practice (Supplementary Table 1).56,57

Treatment Algorithms

The 2021 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions guidelines recommend using intracoronary imaging for procedural guidance in complex coronary intervention, which includes calcified coronary lesions (class 2a). Several treatment algorithms have been proposed that use intracoronary imaging to guide treatment of calcified lesions.58,59 The key determinants in most such algorithms are the extent of the calcium arc, the depth and length of the calcified plaque, and the minimal luminal area. All these parameters can only be appreciated if intravascular imaging is performed. Inability to pass an imaging catheter frequently mandates athero-ablative technologies such as RA or OA. While these ablative therapies may be sufficient to adequately modify the plaque, adequate plaque modification (calcium fractures) should be verified by subsequent intracoronary imaging. Figure 4 is an example of such a proposed treatment algorithm.60

Figure 4: Algorithmic Approach for Management of Calcified Coronary Lesions

Article image

Conclusion

Patients with significantly calcified coronary lesions pose considerable challenges during percutaneous revascularization. Treatment of these lesions is associated with increased periprocedural MACE rates compared with non-calcified lesions. However, the identification of these lesions is key, as it allows the operator to choose a calcium-modification strategy that may mitigate this complexity prior to stent implantation. A variety of treatment options for these lesions exist, including specialized balloons, atherectomy, and IVL. While there is currently no universally accepted algorithm for choosing between treatment strategies, several different algorithms exist and the optimization of these treatment regimens will continue to evolve in the coming years.

Click here to view Supplementary Material

References

  1. Stary HC, Chandler AB, Dinsmore RE, et al. A definition of advanced types of atherosclerotic lesions and a histological classification of atherosclerosis. A report from the Committee on Vascular Lesions of the Council on Arteriosclerosis, American Heart Association. Circulation 1995;92:1355–74. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Demer LL. Vascular calcification and osteoporosis: inflammatory responses to oxidized lipids. Int J Epidemiol 2002;31:737–41. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Kalra SS, Shanahan CM. Vascular calcification and hypertension: cause and effect. Ann Med 2012;44(Suppl 1):S85–92. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Wong ND, Kouwabunpat D, Vo AN, et al. Coronary calcium and atherosclerosis by ultrafast computed tomography in asymptomatic men and women: relation to age and risk factors. Am Heart J 1994;127:422–30. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Goel M, Wong ND, Eisenberg H, et al. Risk factor correlates of coronary calcium as evaluated by ultrafast computed tomography. Am J Cardiol 1992;70:977–80. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Kronmal RA, McClelland RL, Detrano R, et al. Risk factors for the progression of coronary artery calcification in asymptomatic subjects: results from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Circulation 2007;115:2722–30. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Genereux P, Redfors B, Witzenbichler B, et al. Two-year outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention of calcified lesions with drug-eluting stents. Int J Cardiol 2017;231:61–7. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Fujita T, Takeda T, Hano Y, et al. Post-intervention minimal stent area as a predictor of target lesion revascularization after everolimus-eluting stent implantation for in-stent restenosis: a single-center observational study. Coron Artery Dis 2019;30:432–9. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Otsuka F, Sakakura K, Yahagi K, et al. Has our understanding of calcification in human coronary atherosclerosis progressed? Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2014;34:724–36. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Virmani R, Kolodgie FD, Burke AP, et al. Lessons from sudden coronary death: a comprehensive morphological classification scheme for atherosclerotic lesions. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2000;20:1262–75. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Mori H, Torii S, Kutyna M, et al. Coronary artery calcification and its progression: what does it really mean? JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2018;11:127–42. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Bartel AG, Chen JT, Peter RH, et al. The significance of coronary calcification detected by fluoroscopy: a report of 360 patients. Circulation 1974;49:1247–53. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Hamby RI, Tabrah F, Wisoff BG, Hartstein ML. Coronary artery calcification: clinical implications and angiographic correlates. Am Heart J 1974;87:565–70. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Detrano R, Froelicher V. A logical approach to screening for coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med 1987;106:846–52. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Fujii K, Ochiai M, Mintz GS, et al. Procedural implications of intravascular ultrasound morphologic features of chronic total coronary occlusions. Am J Cardiol 2006;97:1455–62. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Agatston AS, Janowitz WR, Hildner FJ, et al. Quantification of coronary artery calcium using ultrafast computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1990;15:827–32. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Budoff MJ, Nasir K, McClelland RL, et al. Coronary calcium predicts events better with absolute calcium scores than age-sex-race/ethnicity percentiles: MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis). J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:345–52. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Greenland P, LaBree L, Azen SP, et al. Coronary artery calcium score combined with Framingham score for risk prediction in asymptomatic individuals. JAMA 2004;291:210–5. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Yamamoto H, Imazu M, Hattori Y, et al. Predicting angiographic narrowing ≥ 50% in diameter in each of the three major arteries by amounts of calcium detected by electron beam computed tomographic scanning in patients with chest pain. Am J Cardiol 1998;81:778–80. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Budoff MJ, Malpeso JM. Is coronary artery calcium the key to assessment of cardiovascular risk in asymptomatic adults? J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2011;5:12–5. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Mintz GS, Nissen SE, Anderson WD, et al. American College of Cardiology clinical expert consensus document on standards for acquisition, measurement and reporting of intravascular ultrasound studies (IVUS): a report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37:1478–92. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. Zhang M, Matsumura M, Usui E, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-derived calcium score to predict stent expansion in severely calcified lesions. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2021;14:e010296. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Garcia-Garcia HM, Gogas BD, Serruys PW, Bruining N. IVUS-based imaging modalities for tissue characterization: similarities and differences. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2011;27:215–24. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. Nair A, Margolis MP, Kuban BD, Vince DG. Automated coronary plaque characterisation with intravascular ultrasound backscatter: ex vivo validation. EuroIntervention 2007;3:113–20 
    PubMed
  25. Mehanna E, Bezerra HG, Prabhu D, et al. Volumetric characterization of human coronary calcification by frequency-domain optical coherence tomography. Circ J 2013;77:2334–40. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. Mintz GS. Clinical utility of intravascular imaging and physiology in coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;64:207–22. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  27. Fujino A, Mintz GS, Matsumura M, et al. A new optical coherence tomography-based calcium scoring system to predict stent underexpansion. EuroIntervention 2018;13:e2182–9. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  28. Zhang YJ, Zhu LL, Bourantas CV, et al. Impact of everolimus versus other rapamycin derivative-eluting stents on clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of 16 randomized trials. J Cardiol 2014;64:185–93. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  29. Bourantas CV, Zhang YJ, Garg S, et al. Prognostic implications of coronary calcification in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease treated by percutaneous coronary intervention: a patient-level pooled analysis of 7 contemporary stent trials. Heart 2014;100:1158–64. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  30. Fitzgerald PJ, Ports TA, Yock PG. Contribution of localized calcium deposits to dissection after angioplasty. An observational study using intravascular ultrasound. Circulation 1992;86:64–70. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  31. Diaz JF, Gomez-Menchero A, Cardenal R, et al. Extremely high-pressure dilation with a new noncompliant balloon. Tex Heart Inst J 2012;39:635–8 
    PubMed
  32. Maejima N, Hibi K, Saka K, et al. Relationship between thickness of calcium on optical coherence tomography and crack formation after balloon dilatation in calcified plaque requiring rotational atherectomy. Circ J 2016;80:1413–9. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  33. Mauri L, Bonan R, Weiner BH, et al. Cutting balloon angioplasty for the prevention of restenosis: results of the Cutting Balloon Global Randomized Trial. Am J Cardiol 2002;90:1079–83. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  34. Albiero R, Silber S, Di Mario C, et al. Cutting balloon versus conventional balloon angioplasty for the treatment of in-stent restenosis: results of the restenosis cutting balloon evaluation trial (RESCUT). J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:943–9. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  35. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation 2011;124:e574–651. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  36. de Ribamar Costa J, Jr, Mintz GS, Carlier SG, et al. Nonrandomized comparison of coronary stenting under intravascular ultrasound guidance of direct stenting without predilation versus conventional predilation with a semi-compliant balloon versus predilation with a new scoring balloon. Am J Cardiol 2007;100:812–7. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  37. Tomey MI, Kini AS, Sharma SK. Current status of rotational atherectomy. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014;7:345–53. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  38. Zimarino M, Corcos T, Bramucci E, Tamburino C. Rotational atherectomy: a “survivor” in the drug-eluting stent era. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2012;13:185–92. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  39. Whitlow PL, Bass TA, Kipperman RM, et al. Results of the study to determine rotablator and transluminal angioplasty strategy (STRATAS). Am J Cardiol 2001;87:699–705. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  40. Safian RD, Feldman T, Muller DW, et al. Coronary angioplasty and Rotablator atherectomy trial (CARAT): immediate and late results of a prospective multicenter randomized trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2001;53:213–20. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  41. MacIsaac AI, Bass TA, Buchbinder M, et al. High speed rotational atherectomy: outcome in calcified and noncalcified coronary artery lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995;26:731–6. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  42. Lee Y, Tanaka A, Mori N, et al. Thin-strut drug-eluting stents are more favorable for severe calcified lesions after rotational atherectomy than thick-strut drug-eluting stents. J Invasive Cardiol 2014;26:41–5 
    PubMed
  43. Abdel-Wahab M, Toelg R, Byrne RA, et al. High-speed rotational atherectomy versus modified balloons prior to drug-eluting stent implantation in severely calcified coronary lesions. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2018;11:e007415. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  44. Parikh K, Chandra P, Choksi N, et al. Safety and feasibility of orbital atherectomy for the treatment of calcified coronary lesions: the ORBIT I trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2013;81:1134–9. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  45. Chambers JW, Feldman RL, Himmelstein SI, et al. Pivotal trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the orbital atherectomy system in treating de novo, severely calcified coronary lesions (ORBIT II). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014;7:510–8. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  46. El Hajj M, Hill A, El Hajj S, et al. One year outcomes of orbital atherectomy versus rotational atherectomy for the treatment of heavily calcified coronary disease. Interv Cardiol (Uxbridge) 2020;12:11–6.
  47. Appelman YE, Piek JJ, Strikwerda S, et al. Randomised trial of excimer laser angioplasty versus balloon angioplasty for treatment of obstructive coronary artery disease. Lancet 1996;347:79–84. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  48. Reifart N, Vandormael M, Krajcar M, et al. Randomized comparison of angioplasty of complex coronary lesions at a single center. Excimer Laser, Rotational Atherectomy, and Balloon Angioplasty Comparison (ERBAC) study. Circulation 1997;96:91–8. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  49. Stone GW, de Marchena E, Dageforde D, et al. Prospective, randomized, multicenter comparison of laser-facilitated balloon angioplasty versus stand-alone balloon angioplasty in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease. The Laser Angioplasty Versus Angioplasty (LAVA) trial investigators. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;30:1714–21. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  50. Badr S, Ben-Dor I, Dvir D, et al. The state of the excimer laser for coronary intervention in the drug-eluting stent era. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2013;14:93–8. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  51. Kereiakes DJ, Virmani R, Hokama JY, et al. Principles of intravascular lithotripsy for calcific plaque modification. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2021;14:1275–92. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  52. Forero MNT, Daemen J. The coronary intravascular lithotripsy system. Interv Cardiol 2019;14:174–81. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  53. Brodmann M, Werner M, Brinton TJ, et al. Safety and performance of lithoplasty for treatment of calcified peripheral artery lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;70:908–10. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  54. Ali ZA, Nef H, Escaned J, et al. Safety and effectiveness of coronary intravascular lithotripsy for treatment of severely calcified coronary stenoses: the Disrupt CAD II study. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2019;12:e008434. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  55. Hill JM, Kereiakes DJ, Shlofmitz RA, et al. Intravascular lithotripsy for treatment of severely calcified coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76:2635–46. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  56. Kereiakes DJ, Di Mario C, Riley RF, et al. Intravascular lithotripsy for treatment of calcified coronary lesions: patient-level pooled analysis of the Disrupt CAD studies. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2021;14:1337–48. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  57. Gardiner R, Muradagha H, Kiernan TJ. Intravascular lithotripsy during percutaneous coronary intervention: current concepts. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther 2022;20:323–38. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  58. Riley RF, Henry TD, Mahmud E, et al. SCAI position statement on optimal percutaneous coronary interventional therapy for complex coronary artery disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2020;96:346–62. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  59. Angsubhakorn N, Kang N, Fearon C, et al. Contemporary management of severely calcified coronary lesions. J Pers Med 2022;12. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  60. Okura H, Hayase M, Shimodozono S, et al. Mechanisms of acute lumen gain following cutting balloon angioplasty in calcified and noncalcified lesions: an intravascular ultrasound study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2002;57:429–36. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  61. Nagaraja V, Kalra A, Puri R. When to use intravascular ultrasound or optical coherence tomography during percutaneous coronary intervention? Cardiovasc Diagn Ther 2020;10:1429–44. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  62. Maehara A, Matsumura M, Ali ZA, et al. IVUS-guided versus OCT-guided coronary stent implantation: a critical appraisal. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2017;10:1487–503. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  63. Mintz GS. Intravascular imaging of coronary calcification and its clinical implications. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;8:461–71. 
    Crossref | PubMed