An attempt to assess the "utility" of directional atherectomy was made using a new quantitative angiographic index. This index can be subdivided into an initial gain component and a restenosis component. The initial gain index is the ratio between the gain in diameter during intervention and the theoretically achievable gain (i.e., reference diameter). The restenosis index is the ratio between the decrease at follow-up and the initial gain during the procedure. The net result at long-term follow-up is characterized by the utility index, which is the ratio between the final gain in diameter at follow-up and what theoretically could have been achieved. For this purpose, 30 coronary artery lesions were selected from a consecutive series of successfully dilated primary angioplasty lesions and were matched with the initial 30 successfully treated primary atherectomy lesions. Matching by location of stenosis and reference diameter resulted in 2 comparable groups with identical preprocedural stenosis characteristics. Atherectomy resulted in an increase in minimal luminal diameter 2 times larger than angioplasty (1.53 vs 0.77 mm; p less than 0.0001). However, at follow-up there was a significant decrease in minimal luminal diameter and a significant increase in percent diameter stenosis in the groups with atherectomy and angioplasty (1.69 +/- 0.58 vs 1.57 +/- 0.58 mm, p = not significant [NS], and 37 +/- 18 vs 47 +/- 18%, p = NS, respectively). The decrease in minimal luminal gain was more pronounced in the group with atherectomy than in that with angioplasty (0.92 +/- 0.69 vs 0.35 +/- 0.51 mm; p = 0.0005).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
The American Journal of Cardiology
Erasmus MC: University Medical Center Rotterdam

Umans, V.A.W.M, Beatt, K.J, Rensing, B.J.W.M, Hermans, W.R.M, de Feyter, P.J, Serruys, P.W.J.C, & Montauban van Swijndregt, E.W.J. (1991). Comparative quantitative angiographic analysis of directional coronary atherectomy and balloon coronary angioplasty. The American Journal of Cardiology, 68, 1556–1563. Retrieved from