Lithotripsy in the “Real World”: REPLICA EPIC-18 Study

Severe persistent calcification of the coronary arteries has been associated with different factors, such as advanced age, hypertension, dyslipidemia, smoking, and kidney failure, among others, and continues to be one of the challenges to stent implantation because of it impact on device advancing, drug release and adequate positioning. 

Litotricia en el "Mundo Real": Estudio REPLICA EPIC-18

Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) is a technique that uses ultrasound through a balloon to treat calcified lesions. However, we currently lack evidence from large studies and, in general, patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have been excluded from them. 

The REPLICA EPIC-18 included 422 patients with 456 calcified lesions treated with IVL: 157 (37.2%) presenting chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) and 265 with ACS.

Efficacy primary outcome was defined as successful coronary angioplasty with residual <20% stenosis with no hospital complications, while the safety end point was the presence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 30 days, defined as the composite of death, MI or target vessel revascularization (TVR).

Patient mean age was 73, with 84% of patients with hypertension, 52% with diabetes, 17% with peripheral vascular disease, 37% prior MI, 41% prior PCI, 10% prior CABG and 21% kidney function deterioration. 

Read also: TAVR in the Different Types of Aortic Stenosis.

75% of patients had ACS, 70% presented conserved ventricular function and 6% showed severe ventricular function deterioration. 

76% of procedures were done via transradial approach, and 49% of lesions were considered undilatable. The artery most frequent treated with IVL was the anterior descending (44.5%), followed by the right coronary (32%), the circumflex (21.2%) and the left main (11%). Residual stenosis after stenting was 15% ± 13 mm.

The efficacy primary outcome was reached in 66% of cases and the safety end point in 96.4% with a higher trend towards MACE in ACS patients vs CCS patients (4.5% vs. 1.3%; P= 0.073).

Read also: Physiologically Significant Obstructions in the Left Main Coronary Artery: Revascularizing vs. Deferring.

There were no significant differences in mortality, MI or TVR.

Lack of stent expansion predictors were obstruction length, reference diameter and obstruction percentage. 

Conclusion

Coronary lithotripsy was shown feasible and safe in the “real world”, effectively facilitating stent implantation in severely calcified lesions. Even though ACS patients showed similar successful rates, they presented a tendency towards higher MACE incidence at 30 days, vs. patients with CCS. 

Dr. Carlos Fava - Consejo Editorial SOLACI

Dr. Carlos Fava.
Member of the Editorial Board of SOLACI.org.

Original Title: A Prospective, Multicenter, Real-World Registry of Coronary Lithotripsy in Calcified Coronary Arteries. The REPLICA-EPIC18 Study.

Reference: Oriol Rodriguez-Leor, et al J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2024;17:756–767.


Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiology

More articles by this author

iFR- vs. FFR-Guided Coronary Revascularization: 5-Year Clinical Outcomes

The assessment of coronary stenosis using coronary physiology has become a key tool in guiding revascularization. The two most widely used techniques are fractional...

Patients at High Risk of Bleeding After Coronary Angioplasty: Are Risk Assessment Tools ARC-HBR and PRECISE-DAPT Useful?

Patients undergoing coronary stenting typically receive dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 6 to 12 months, consisting of a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor and aspirin. While DAPT...

ACC 2025 | WARRIOR: Ischemia in Women with Non-Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease

Approximately half of all women with symptomatic ischemia who undergo coronary angiography are found to have non-obstructive coronary artery disease ((ischemia and non-obstructive coronary...

ACC 2025 | FLAVOUR II: Angiography-Derived FFR-Guided vs. IVUS-Guided PCI

Physiological assessment is effective when it comes to decision-making for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, despite the available evidence, its use remains limited. AngioFFR...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

SMART-CHOICE 3 | Efficacy and Safety of Clopidogrel vs Aspirin Monotherapy in High Risk Patients after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Courtesy of Dr. Juan Manuel Pérez. After post percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) standard duration dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), the optimal long term monotherapy strategy is...

RACE Trial: Effect of Balloon Pulmonary Angioplasty and Riociguat on Right Ventricular Afterload and Function in Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension

Even though pulmonary endarterectomy is the treatment of choice for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), up to 40% of patients are not candidates because...

iFR- vs. FFR-Guided Coronary Revascularization: 5-Year Clinical Outcomes

The assessment of coronary stenosis using coronary physiology has become a key tool in guiding revascularization. The two most widely used techniques are fractional...