Clinical Research Directory

Intravascular Lithotripsy Versus Rotational Atherectomy for Severe Coronary Artery Calcification: A Prospective, Multicenter, Non-inferiority Randomized Controlled Trial

Severely calcified coronary lesions represent one of the major challenges in interventional cardiology. Severe coronary calcification increases the difficulty and complexity of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), impedes device delivery, and may even lead to device failure. Moreover, stent underexpansion further elevates the risks of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and in-stent thrombosis. Rotational atherectomy (RA) is an effective modality for treating severely calcified coronary lesions, as it adequately modifies calcific plaques, facilitates luminal enlargement, and improves device deliverability. However, RA fragments calcific plaques into microparticles that are subsequently cleared by the reticuloendothelial system in the distal microvasculature, potentially inducing microvascular dysfunction. In recent years, intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) has emerged as an innovative calcium-modification technique in clinical practice. This technology employs acoustic pressure waves to selectively disrupt deep-seated calcific plaques, inducing fractures within the calcium while sparing the soft tissue of the vessel wall from substantial injury. IVL is performed with low-pressure balloon inflation (4-6 atm), which helps to minimize the risk of vascular injury; its mechanism of action does not produce macroscopic debris, theoretically obviating distal embolization and associated microcirculatory disturbances. Recently published prospective observational studies-the REPLICA-EPIC18 and BENELUX-IVL registries-have demonstrated that IVL is feasible and safe in "real-world" severely calcified lesions, effectively facilitating stent implantation. Although both RA and IVL are important tools for managing severe calcific lesions, there remains a paucity of high-level, head-to-head evidence directly comparing post-procedural minimal stent area between the two modalities. Clarifying this issue is of significant clinical importance for guiding clinicians in selecting optimal revascularization strategies tailored to distinct pathological characteristics and patient profiles, thereby improving procedural safety and patient outcomes. To this end, we plan to conduct a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial (RCT) aimed at comparing the minimal stent area between intravascular lithotripsy and rotational atherectomy in patients with severely calcified lesions.

Orbital Atherectomy vs Intravascular Lithotripsy for the Treatment of Calcified Coronary Nodules (ORBIT-SHOCK).

The ORBIT-SHOCK pilot study is a multicenter, prospective, randomized clinical trial initiated by investigators. It will include patients diagnosed with atherosclerotic coronary artery disease presenting calcified nodules (CN), identified by optical coherence tomography (OCT), causing significant angiographic stenosis and eligible for revascularization through percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to undergo lesion preparation with either orbital atherectomy (OA) or intravascular lithotripsy (IVL). The ORBIT-SHOCK pilot study is a multicenter, prospective, randomized clinical trial initiated by investigators. It will include patients diagnosed with atherosclerotic coronary artery disease presenting calcified nodules (CN), identified by optical coherence tomography (OCT), causing significant angiographic stenosis and eligible for revascularization through percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to undergo lesion preparation with either orbital atherectomy (OA) or intravascular lithotripsy (IVL). The aim of this pilot trial is to compare PCI outcomes and the incidence of adverse events between both techniques.

Optimal Strategy to Correct Stent underexpAnsion in Resistant Lesions

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for in-stent restenosis (ISR) accounts for 5-10% of PCI. ISR may be linked to mechanical complications mainly under-expansion (UE), neointimal hyperplasia and/or neoatherosclerosis. International guidelines recommends non-compliant and very-high-pressure balloons, which lead to sub-optimal angiographic and clinical results. Recently, observational studies have suggested the feasibility and safety of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) in UE treatment. There are no prospective randomised controlled studies comparing intravascular lithotripsy with balloons in ISR with UE.

Clinical Trial on the Treatment of Stent Underexpansion Caused by Calcification Using Intravascular Lithotripsy

Our aim is to investigate the efficacy and safety of intravascular lithotripsy(IVL) in the treatment of stent underexpansion caused by calcification through a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Patients with inadequate stent expansion due to calcification detected by intravascular ultrasound(IVUS) were randomly divided into two groups. The experimental group received IVL in addition to high-pressure balloon post-dilation, while the control group only received high-pressure balloon post-dilation. Follow up for 1 year is conducted to determine the safety and efficacy of IVL application based on the primary efficacy endpoint, key secondary efficacy endpoint, other secondary efficacy endpoint, and safety endpoint.