The current role of the rotational atherectomy is for non-dilatable coronary lesions and for severely calcified lesions that may interfere with optimal stent expansion.
Severely calcified coronary lesions are associated with worse outcomes. In this regard, chronic kidney disease is associated with severely calcified coronary arteries.
Some evidence suggests that elective rotational atherectomy used by experienced operators can be safe and effective, minimizing time and complications for patients with heavily calcified lesions.
However, there is no direct randomized comparison between rotational atherectomy and angioplasty alone in the setting of chronic renal failure and with intravascular ultrasound assessment for detecting severely calcified coronary arteries.
The aim of this study is to compare the healthcare cost analysis between elective atherectomy and conventional atherectomy (bailout). The secondary endpoints were stent placement success (defined as expansion with \<20% residual stenosis assessed by intravascular ultrasound and TIMI 3 flow without crossover or stent failure), procedure time, radiation exposure, periprocedural and in-hospital complications, and major cardiovascular adverse events at medium-term follow-up.
