Coronary atherectomy versus angioplasty: The CAVA study

Directional coronary atherectomy was developed with the hope that it would lower the risk of acute closure and restenosis by leaving a larger smoother lumen and fewer dissections than angioplasty. To evaluate this hypothesis, we compared the clinical and angiographic results of directional coronary atherectomy with those of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in well-matched groups. We studied 126 consecutive atherectomies and 127 angioplasties performed on similar lesions. Procedural results were evaluated with regard to dissections, complications, acute closure, and residual stenosis. Each patient's clinical course was followed, and each patient was contacted at 6 months for evaluation of recurrent angina, need for repeat catheterization, and angiographic rate of restenosis. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics of the two groups were well matched and met the criteria established as being appropriate for atherectomy. The angiographic success rate was 98% after angioplasty and 99% after atherectomy. There were fewer dissections after atherectomy (13%) compared with the number after angioplasty (22%; p = 0.03). Residual stenosis was 8.3 ± 9% after atherectomy compared with 15 ± 12% after angioplasty ( p = 0.0001). However, there were more complications after atherectomy ( p = 0.03). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the recurrence rate of angina or in the angiographic restenosis rate at 6 months. It was concluded that when lesion characteristics and vessel size are appropriate for atherectomy, the procedural success rate of either atherectomy or angioplasty is extremely high. Although atherectomy leads to a larger residual lumen and fewer dissections, the complication rate after atherectomy is higher than that after angioplasty. There is a trend toward more occlusions after atherectomy. The clinical results and the angiographic restenosis rates of the two procedures are similar.