Skip to content

Comparison of Coronary Lithoplasty and Rotablation

Comparison of Coronary Lithoplasty and Rotablation for the Interventional Treatment of Severely Calcified Coronary Stenoses - ROTA.Shock-Trial

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04047368
Enrollment
70
Registered
2019-08-06
Start date
2019-06-28
Completion date
2022-06-28
Last updated
2023-12-01

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Calcified Atheroma, Coronary Artery Disease

Keywords

Percutaneous coronary intervention, Rotablation, Coronary lithoplasty, Optical coherence tomography

Brief summary

This study compares a new method of treating severely calcified coronary lesions, the intracoronary lithoplasty, with the current gold standard, the rotablation.

Detailed description

Severe coronary calcification is still a challenge for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Reduction of the calcified plaque mass is necessary to achieve adequate stent expansion during further course. Rotablation has been the only reliable option to treat extremely calcified coronary lesions for a long time. Coronary lithoplasty has been recently introduced as a new promising treatment option in this special subset. It provides the unique opportunity to break severely calcified plaque structures even inside deeper layers of the vessel wall. Aim of this study is to compare rotablation and coronary lithotripsy for treatment of severely calcified coronary lesions. Plaque structure, plaque volume, as well as lumen diameters will be analyzed by optical coherence tomography (OCT) before and after debulking, as well as after stent implantation.

Interventions

PROCEDURERotablation

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention using Rotablation

PROCEDURECoronary Lithoplasty

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention using Lithoplasty

Sponsors

Else Kröner-Fresenius Stiftung, Bad Homburg, Germany
CollaboratorUNKNOWN
University of Giessen
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Age\>18 yrs * Stable coronary heart disease or acute coronary syndromes * Single or multi vessel disease. Vessel is defined as, left anterior descending, left circumflex, and right coronary arteries. Any branch within the vessel is considered part of the vessel. * Written informed consent was obtained before the procedure * Severely calcified coronary lesion with indication for rotablation

Exclusion criteria

* Known renal insufficiency (serum creatinine clearance \<30ml/min/1.73m² or receiving dialysis) * Known allergy against protocol-required medications including ASS, prasugrel, ticagrelor, clopidogrel, heparin. History of bleeding diathesis or known coagulopathy * Cardiogenic shock * Lesion length \> 32mm * Bifurcation lesions requiring 2-Stent-Strategies

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Minimal Stent Area (End of the Procedure)0 days

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Incidence of target lesion failure0 months; 1 month; 6 months
Incidence of target vessel failure0 months; 1 month; 6 months
MACE rate0 months; 1 month; 6 months
Mean/Maximal Stent area0 days
Minimal/Mean/Maximal Lumen area0 days
Minimal/Mean/Maximal Lumen diameter0 days
Minimal/Mean/Maximal Stent Diameter0 days

Countries

Germany

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026