Percutaneous management of calcified coronary arteries – review of atherectomy and lithotripsy devices and why it is important
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Coronary artery calcification (CAC) predisposes to suboptimal revascularization outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Despite the availability of several plaque modification devices, their rates of use remain low despite the prevalence of CAC encountered in clinical practice. It is important to understand how each device can be utilized in clinical practice in order to improve outcomes after PCI. RECENT FINDINGS: This article summarizes the most recent clinical evidence for each plaque modification device. Although rotational atherectomy is the most frequently used device for plaque modification, the use of orbital atherectomy (OA) has been increasing. Balloon-based strategies including recent studies evaluating a novel intravascular lithotripsy balloon have shed light on the benefits of nonablative devices in modifying CAC during PCI. SUMMARY: CAC poses significant technical challenges in achieving optimal stent results. Several intracoronary plaque modification devices are currently available and understanding the technical aspects, indications and contraindications to the use of each device is essential. Although rotational and OA are most commonly used, laser atherectomy and balloon-based devices may offer an advantage in certain lesion subsets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".