We read with great interest the study by Skorupski et al. [1] evaluating intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) in calcified left main (LM) coronary artery disease and reporting 2-year clinical outcomes. The authors should be commended for providing valuable real-world data in a particularly complex and high-risk anatomical subset. Nevertheless, we believe that several methodological aspects deserve further clarification and discussion.

Although the manuscript emphasizes long-term outcomes of IVL in LM disease, the analytical framework is primarily based on a comparison between LM-IVL and non-LM-IVL patients, leading to the conclusion that long-term clinical outcomes were comparable. In our view, LM and non-LM interventions represent fundamentally different procedural entities rather than equivalent comparators. LM PCI is inherently high risk, frequently involving bifurcation strategies, larger guiding catheters, more complex stenting techniques, and, in selected cases, mechanical circulatory support. Indeed, in the present study, ≥ 7F guiding catheters and mechanical support were used substantially more often in the LM group. In contrast, non-LM interventions generally involve smaller-caliber vessels supplying a more limited myocardial territory. Therefore, directly comparing long-term outcomes between LM and non-LM IVL procedures may resemble a comparison between intrinsically different procedural and prognostic scenarios. This raises a conceptual issue: if the primary objective is to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of IVL in LM disease, a focused evaluation of the LM cohort, interpreted within the context of contemporary LM PCI literature, might provide a clearer message. Conversely, juxtaposing LM and non-LM outcomes may inadvertently imply procedural equivalence where none inherently exists.

Moreover, the 2-year all-cause mortality was numerically higher in the LM group (14.8%) compared with the non-LM group (6.3%), although the difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.087). The absence of statistical significance should not be equated with equivalence, particularly in the...


Pełna treść artykułu...