Orbital atherectomy safety and efficacy: A comparative analysis of ostial versus non-ostial calcified coronary lesions

Background: The safety and efficacy of coronary orbital atherectomy (OA) for treatment of ostial lesions are not yet fully established. We sought to evaluate (OA) treatment of severely calcified ostial and non-ostial lesions.Methods: A retrospective analysis of subjects treated with OA for severely calcified ostial and non-ostial lesions, at the Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach, Florida (MSMCMB) from January 2014 to September 2020, was completed. Study baseline characteristics, lesion and vessel characteristics, procedural outcomes, and in-hospital major ad-verse cardiovascular events (MACE) were analyzed and compared. Results: A total of 609 patients that underwent PCI with OA were identified. The majority of patients (81.9 %) had non-ostial lesions, while 16.6 % had ostial lesions (of which 2.8 % classified as aorto-ostial) and 1.5 % had unknown lesion anatomy. The mean age of the overall cohort was 74.0 +/- 9.3 years, and 63.5 % were male. All patients received drugeluting stent (DES) placement, and the overall freedom from MACE was 98.5 %, with no significant difference observed between the ostial and non-ostial groups. The freedom from cardiac death and MI was also similar between the two groups. There were low rates of bleeding complications and severe angiographic complications, and no persistent slow flow/no reflow was reported.Conclusions: This study demonstrated no significant differences in in-hospital MACE outcomes between patients with ostial versus non-ostial lesions, indicating that OA is a safe and effective treatment option for both lesion types, including those classified as aorto-ostial.