Calcium-Modification Techniques in Calcified Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review of Comparative Evidence on Procedural Success, Complications and Clinical Outcomes
4 affiliations
- 1Department of Cardiology, Kauvery Hospital, Vadapalani, Chennai 600026, India
- 2Department of Cardiology, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai 600116, India
- 3Cardiology, Chan School of Medicine, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, MA 01655, USA
- 4Cardiology, St. Boniface Hospital, University of Manitoba, 409 Taché Avenue, Winnipeg, MB R2H 2A6, Canada
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Severe coronary calcification complicates percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and several calcium-modification technologies are available, but direct randomized comparisons are limited. We reviewed the comparative evidence on procedural success, complications and clinical outcomes. Methods: Comparative studies of coronary calcium-modification techniques during PCI that reported procedural, safety or clinical outcomes were eligible. PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched in May 2025 for records published from 1 April 2015 to 1 April 2025 (PROSPERO CRD420251077471; no external funding). We included 32 publications: eight randomized trials (10 publications) and 22 observational or descriptive studies. Evidence was organized in tiers and synthesized descriptively, without pooling, because definitions were heterogeneous and event rates were low. Risk of bias in randomized trials was assessed with RoB 2 where full texts were accessible. Results: Procedural success was generally high (usually 85–100%) and major complications were uncommon, but success definitions differed, and reported dissection (0% to over 80%) and slow-flow (0% to 31.6%) rates varied widely. Most comparative data were observational. In randomized comparisons, no device consistently outperformed another for procedural success, stent expansion or minimal stent area. Clinical outcome comparisons were limited by heterogeneous endpoints and low event rates. Risk of bias was rated from full texts for five out of the eight randomized trials, none at low risk overall; ratings for the others were provisional or not possible. Conclusions: The evidence is largely observational and of low certainty, and is insufficient to establish clinically meaningful differences among most technologies. Device selection should be lesion-specific and imaging-informed, and adequately powered head-to-head trials with standardized endpoints are needed.
Related
- Association of Structured Preclinical Phantom Training and OSCE/OSPE-Based Assessment with Endodontic Procedural Complications Among Dental Students: A Retrospective Cohort Study
- Procedural Complications and Implant Cutout of the SpineJack®-System in Thoracolumbar Vertebral Fractures: A Retrospective Analysis of 204 Implants from a Level-1 Trauma Center
- Pleural and Thoracic Air-Leak Complications After Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: Diagnosis and Procedural Management.
- Comparative safety and sedation-related outcomes of fospropofol disodium versus propofol for adult sedation outside general anaesthesia induction or maintenance (including ICU and procedural sedation): a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
- Needle-Related Procedural Pain: An Integrated Nervous-System Framework from Tissue Mechanics to Central Processing—A Systematic Review
BibTeX
@article{chidambaram2026calciummodification,
title = {{Calcium-Modification Techniques in Calcified Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review of Comparative Evidence on Procedural Success, Complications and Clinical Outcomes}},
author = {Sundar Chidambaram and Manokar Panchanatham and Mahadevan Venkataramani and Maheshbabu Panchanatham and Jebaraj Rathinasamy and Deepchand Raja and Nithesh Kumar and Surendar Gunasekaran and Selva Prakash and Nagendra Boopathy Senguttuvan and Vaikkom S. Mahadevan and Ashish H. Shah},
journal = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3390/jcm15218319},
url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/21/8319},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Calcium-Modification Techniques in Calcified Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review of Comparative Evidence on Procedural Success, Complications and Clinical Outcomes
AU - Sundar Chidambaram
AU - Manokar Panchanatham
AU - Mahadevan Venkataramani
AU - Maheshbabu Panchanatham
AU - Jebaraj Rathinasamy
AU - Deepchand Raja
AU - Nithesh Kumar
AU - Surendar Gunasekaran
AU - Selva Prakash
AU - Nagendra Boopathy Senguttuvan
AU - Vaikkom S. Mahadevan
AU - Ashish H. Shah
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/26
JO - Journal of Clinical Medicine
DO - 10.3390/jcm15218319
UR - https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/21/8319
AB - Background/Objectives: Severe coronary calcification complicates percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and several calcium-modification technologies are available, but direct randomized comparisons are limited. We reviewed the comparative evidence on procedural success, complications and clinical outcomes. Methods: Comparative studies of coronary calcium-modification techniques during PCI that reported procedural, safety or clinical outcomes were eligible. PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched in May 2025 for records published from 1 April 2015 to 1 April 2025 (PROSPERO CRD420251077471; no external funding). We included 32 publications: eight randomized trials (10 publications) and 22 observational or descriptive studies. Evidence was organized in tiers and synthesized descriptively, without pooling, because definitions were heterogeneous and event rates were low. Risk of bias in randomized trials was assessed with RoB 2 where full texts were accessible. Results: Procedural success was generally high (usually 85–100%) and major complications were uncommon, but success definitions differed, and reported dissection (0% to over 80%) and slow-flow (0% to 31.6%) rates varied widely. Most comparative data were observational. In randomized comparisons, no device consistently outperformed another for procedural success, stent expansion or minimal stent area. Clinical outcome comparisons were limited by heterogeneous endpoints and low event rates. Risk of bias was rated from full texts for five out of the eight randomized trials, none at low risk overall; ratings for the others were provisional or not possible. Conclusions: The evidence is largely observational and of low certainty, and is insufficient to establish clinically meaningful differences among most technologies. Device selection should be lesion-specific and imaging-informed, and adequately powered head-to-head trials with standardized endpoints are needed.
SN - 2077-0383
ER -