This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Williams, D. O. Articles by Fahrenbach, M. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Williams, D. O. Articles by Fahrenbach, M. C.

(Circulation. 1998;97:309-311.)
© 1998 American Heart Association, Inc.

Editorial

Directional Coronary Atherectomy

But Wait, There's More

David O. Williams, MD; ; Mary C. Fahrenbach, MD

From the Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Rhode Island Hospital, Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, RI.

Correspondence to David O. Williams, MD, Division of Cardiology, APC 434A, Rhode Island Hospital, 593 Eddy St, Providence, RI 02903. E-mail davidwilliams@brown.edu

Key Words: Editorials • atherosclerosis • surgery • trials

Directional coronary atherectomy (DCA) was originally developed as a potential replacement for balloon angioplasty. The design of the catheter used to perform DCA offered several unique advantages. First, it was capable of removing obstructive atherosclerotic lesions. Thus rather than rearranging plaque within an artery as occurs with balloon angioplasty, the obstruction was relieved by reduction of the plaque mass. Second, certain lesions with characteristics unfavorable for balloon angioplasty appeared to be ideally suited for DCA. Since the atherectomy catheter had a cutting window that could be positioned rotationally as well as longitudinally within an artery, eccentric plaque could be removed selectively. Similar benefits were anticipated from lesions located at important coronary bifurcations, such as those involving the left anterior descending coronary artery and origin of the diagonal branch. Finally, tissue removed by DCA was available for analysis to expand our knowledge about coronary atherosclerosis. Samples of coronary atheroma could be examined grossly and microscopically¹ and studied by immunohistochemistry.²

Initially, the value of DCA was assessed by means of a large registry that catalogued acute and late clinical outcomes.³ When compared with a historical control, the results of DCA appeared comparable to or better than those achieved by balloon angioplasty. There was a sense that the incidence of serious coronary dissection and abrupt occlusion after DCA was less than that after balloon angioplasty.⁴

DCA became the first of the "new" percutaneous, catheter-based devices approved for the treatment of coronary disease in the United States. Interestingly, unlike current "new devices," approval did . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W. H. Maisel and W. K. Laskey Patent Foramen Ovale Closure Devices: Moving Beyond Equipoise JAMA, July 20, 2005; 294(3): 366 - 369. [Full Text] [PDF]