Orbital atherectomy versus rotational atherectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Coronary artery calcification is associated with poor outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Atheroablative techniques such as orbital atherectomy (OA) and rotational atherectomy (RA) are routinely utilized to treat these calcified lesions in order to optimize lesion preparation and facilitate stent delivery. Objectives The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the performance of OA versus RA in patients with calcified coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing PCI. Methods We conducted an electronic database search of all published data for studies that compared OA versus RA in patients with calcified coronary artery disease undergoing PCI and reported on outcomes of interest. Event rates were compared using a forest plot of odds ratios using a random-effects model assuming interstudy heterogeneity. Results A total of five observational studies (total number of patients = 1872; OA = 535, RA = 1337) were included in the final analysis. On pooled analysis, OA compared to RA was associated with a significant reduction in fluoroscopy times (OR = −6.33; 95% CI = −9.90 to −2.76; p < .0005; I2 = 82). There was no difference between the two techniques in terms of contrast volume, coronary artery dissection, device induced arterial perforation, cardiac tamponade, slow flow/no reflow, periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI), in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, 30-day MI, 30-day target vessel revascularization (TVR), and 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Conclusion Except for lower fluoroscopy time with OA, there are no significant differences between OA and RA in relation to procedural, periprocedural, and thirty day outcomes among patients with calcified CAD undergoing PCI.