MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117563718 · doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2025-bscr.25

P23  Comparing rotational and orbital atherectomy for the treatment of calcified coronary lesions: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· article· W7117563718 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eyad Jamileh, Ahmed T. Elmewafy, Abdelmadjid Zinet, Umar Faruq Ali, Usama Al Bouche Ade, Ahmed Ali Kayyale, Ibrahim Antoun

Bibliographic record

VenuePoster · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaceAtherectomyPercutaneous coronary interventionMyocardial infarctionPercutaneousCardiac tamponadeFluoroscopyDissection (medical)Observational study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Introduction</h3> Coronary artery calcification (CAC) is associated with poor outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).<sup>1</sup>Rotational atherectomy (RA) and orbital atherectomy (OA) are two ways to manage CAC.<sup>2</sup> <h3>Methods</h3> A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. PubMed was searched from January 2000 to July 2025. Eligible studies reported comparisons between OA and RA in the management of patients with severe CAC. Data was synthesised quantitatively and narratively. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess risk of bias in observational studies, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used for randomised controlled trials. <h3>Results</h3> No significant differences were found in short-term major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), cardiac mortality, long-term non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), or short-term target vessel revascularisation (TVR). RA was associated with higher long-term MACE (OR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.02–2.27), long-term TVR (OR: 2.55, 95% CI: 1.14–5.71), short-term non-fatal MI (OR: 1.75, 95% CI: 1.05–2.92), and short- and long-term all-cause mortality (OR: 1.61 and 3.98, respectively). However, RA showed lower rates of coronary dissection (OR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.29–0.45) and cardiac tamponade (OR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.25–0.46). No differences were found in slow-flow/no-reflow, device-induced perforation, fluoroscopy time, or contrast volume. <h3>Conclusion</h3> OA is associated with superior long-term outcomes, while RA demonstrated fewer procedural complications, highlighting the need for individualised device selection based on patient and lesion characteristics. <h3>References</h3> Virmani R, Burke AP, Farb A, Kolodgie FD. Pathology of the vulnerable plaque. <i>J Am Coll Cardiol.</i> 2006;<b>47</b>(8 Suppl):C13-C18. Khan MH, Ahmed Z, Fatima B, <i>et al</i>. Rotational versus orbital atherectomy for treating heavily calcified coronary lesions: a meta-analysis. <i>Catheter Cardiovasc Interv.</i> 2020;<b>96</b>(6):1242–1249.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePosterSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207