Myth versus evidence: what the literature really says about atherectomy

To address the perception of limited published data supporting the use of atherectomy to treat peripheral arterial disease (PAD),1 Medtronic partnered with Jeffrey Carr, MD; Ralf Langhoff, MD; and Eric Secemsky, MD, MSc, to conduct the most comprehensive review of atherectomy literature for peripheral endovascular interventions to date.

They set out to discover the:

  • totality of the reported data for atherectomy
  • level of rigor for the published evidence
  • patient outcomes


Atherectomy is backed by robust clinical evidence.

  • Published evidence for atherectomy is extensive, with 322 original research articles published through November 2024, including high levels of evidence.2
  • Atherectomy is effective for both above the knee (ATK) and below the knee (BTK), and in both chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and claudication.2
  • Atherectomy is effective in both calcified and noncalcified lesions with a trend toward lower target lesion revascularization (TLR) rates in severely calcified lesions.2


322

original research articles published through November 2024

 



Published atherectomy literature through November 2024

322 published papers on atherectomy for endovascular treatment of occlusive or stenotic disease in native, infrainguinal peripheral arteries, including2:

  • Directional atherectomy: 121 papers (37.6%)
  • Rotational atherectomy: 72 papers (22.4%)
  • Laser atherectomy: 44 papers (13.7%)
  • Orbital atherectomy: 30 papers (9.3%)
  • Mixed: 55 papers (17.1%)


Meta-analyses, case studies, and redundant datasets included in systematic review but excluded from quantitative meta-analysis. Case studies defined as either single-patient case studies or case series with < 10 patients and presenting no aggregate data.



Clinical rigor: top-tier studies validate atherectomy use

The systematic literature review found the highest levels of evidence were represented, including meta-analyses, randomized trials, and prospective, multicenter observational studies.




Atherectomy delivers favorable outcomes across key metrics.

Atherectomy was associated with low rates of 12-month patency loss, target lesion revascularization (TLR), major amputation, and mortality, as well as low bailout stenting rates. These rates compare favorably to published meta-analysis rates for uncoated balloon angioplasty and drug-coated balloon without atherectomy.3–6

All atherectomy (1998–2024)2

Meta-analysis rates and confidence intervals


12-month safety and effectiveness based on disease severity2

Major amputation

Meta-analysis rates and 95% confidence intervals

  • Very low amputation rates in ATK lesions (0.6%)
  • Major amputation rates higher when CLTI prevalence is ≥ 50% and for BTK vs. ATK
  • Amputation rates similar regardless of severe calcification

TLR

Meta-analysis rates and 95% confidence intervals

  • TLR outcomes are similar across CLTI, claudicant, ATK, and BTK cohorts
  • TLR rates are not worse in cohorts with a higher prevalence of severe calcification

Directional atherectomy
(contemporary analysis, 2014–2024)2

The overall analysis shown on the first graph includes all device classes. The second graph shows the analysis for studies that evaluated only directional atherectomy.

Results show patients treated with directional atherectomy had lower rates of TLR, amputation, mortality, and bailout stenting than the overall analysis.2


All atherectomy devices

Meta-analysis rates and 95% confidence intervals


Directional only

Meta-analysis rates and 95% confidence intervals

Nonredundant prospective and retrospective observational studies, including nonoverlapping claims/database analyses (e.g., Medicare, VQI). Case studies fewer than ten patients and meta-analyses excluded.