Lots of interesting abstracts and cases were submitted for TCTAP 2025. Below are the accepted ones after a thorough review by our official reviewers. Don’t miss the opportunity to expand your knowledge and interact with authors as well as virtual participants by sharing your opinion in the comment section!
TCTAP A-020
Predictors of Intravascular Lithotripsy Balloon Rupture During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Highly Calcified Lesions
By Takahide Murasawa, Takashi Kubo, Nobuhiro Tanaka
Presenter
Takahide Murasawa
Authors
Takahide Murasawa1, Takashi Kubo1, Nobuhiro Tanaka1
Affiliation
Tokyo Medical University Hachioji Medical Center, Japan1
View Study Report
TCTAP A-020
Adjunctive Procedures (Thrombectomy, Atherectomy, Special Balloons)
Predictors of Intravascular Lithotripsy Balloon Rupture During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Highly Calcified Lesions
Takahide Murasawa1, Takashi Kubo1, Nobuhiro Tanaka1
Tokyo Medical University Hachioji Medical Center, Japan1
Background
The efficacy and safetyof endovascular lithotripsy (IVL) during percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI) for highly calcified lesions is of great concern.
Methods
The present study examined 41 patients who underwent PCI usingIVL. Angiographic and optical coherence tomography (OCT: n=26) or intravascularsonography (IVUS: n=15) findings were compared between IVL balloon rupture andIVL balloon non-rupture groups.
Results
Five patients (12%) had IVL balloon rupture. Lesion tortuosity waslarger (49±14° vs. 20±12°, p<0.05) and calcified nodule was more frequentlyseen (100% vs. 25%, p<0.05) in the rupture group than in the non-rupturegroup. The IVL balloon/vessel ratio was not different between the two groups(0.99±0.13 vs. 1.02±0.21, NS). Immediately after IVL, the frequency of calciumcracks (100% vs. 80%, NS) and the maximum calcium thickness at the cracked site(1,000 ± 220µm vs. 1230 ± 120µm, NS) were similar between the two groups.Coronary artery hematoma was seen only in the IVL balloon rupture group (1 casevs. 0 cases, NS). Subsequently implanted stent diameter (2.70 ± 0.27 mm vs.2.99 ± 0.51 mm, NS) and post-dilatation balloon diameter (3.13 ± 0.63 mm vs.3.500.46 mm, NS) and final stent expansion index (83 ± 4% vs. 84 ± 10%, NS) werecomparable between the two groups. No coronary perforation, slow/no-reflow, ordistal embolization was observed in both groups.
Conclusion
The IVL balloon rupture was not uncommon and was associated with alarge lesion bending angle and the presence of calcified nodules. Similar tothe IVL balloon non-rupture group, the IVL balloon rupture group achieved favorablelesion expansion with subsequent stenting without serious complications such ascoronary perforation.