CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

IVUS Guidance

Abstract

Recommended Article

Positive remodeling at 3 year follow up is associated with plaque-free coronary wall segment at baseline: a serial IVUS study Clinical use of intracoronary imaging. Part 1: guidance and optimization of coronary interventions. An expert consensus document of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions: Endorsed by the Chinese Society of Cardiology Clinical Outcomes Following Intravascular Imaging-Guided Versus Coronary Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Stent Implantation: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of 31 Studies and 17,882 Patients Long-term health outcome and mortality evaluation after invasive coronary treatment using drug eluting stents with or without the IVUS guidance. Randomized control trial. HOME DES IVUS Optical frequency domain imaging vs. intravascular ultrasound in percutaneous coronary intervention (OPINION trial): one-year angiographic and clinical results Role of Proximal Optimization Technique Guided by Intravascular Ultrasound on Stent Expansion, Stent Symmetry Index, and Side-Branch Hemodynamics in Patients With Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Subclinical Atherosclerosis Burden by 3D Ultrasound in Mid-Life: The PESA Study Meta-analysis of outcomes after intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation in 26,503 patients enrolled in three randomized trials and 14 observational studies

Review Article2012 Nov 22;8(7):855-65.

JOURNAL:EuroIntervention. Article Link

Comparison of intravascular ultrasound versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation: a meta-analysis of one randomised trial and ten observational studies involving 19,619 patients

Zhang JY, Farooq V, Chen SL et al. Keywords: intravascular ultrasound; drug-eluting stent; angiography; major adverse cardiac events; stent thrombosis

ABSTRACT


AIMS - The impact of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guided coronary drug-eluting stent(DES) implantation on clinical outcomes remains controversial. A meta-analysis of the currently available clinical trials investigating IVUS-guided DES implantation was undertaken.


METHODS AND RESULTS - We searched Medline, the Cochrane Library and other internet sources, without language or date restrictions, for published articles comparing clinical outcomes between IVUS-guided and angiography-guided DES implantation. Clinical studies with both adjusted and unadjusted data were included. Eleven studies were identified (one randomised controlled trial and 10 registries) and included in the meta-analysis with a weighted follow-up time of 20.7 ± 11.5 months. Compared with angiography guidance, IVUS-guided DES implantation was associated with a reduced incidence of death (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48-0.73, p<0.001), major adverse cardiac events (HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.78-0.96, p=0.008) and stent thrombosis (HR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.44-0.77, p<0.001). The incidence of myocardial infarction (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.63-1.06, p=0.126), target lesion (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.73-1.11, p=0.316) and target vessel (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.77-1.05, p=0.195) revascularisation was comparable between the angiography and IVUS-guided arms. A repeat meta-analysis of propensity-matched studies only (six studies, n=5,300) yielded broadly similar results in terms of clinical outcomes.


CONCLUSIONS - IVUS-guided coronary DES implantationis associated with a significant reduction in death, MACE and stent thrombosis compared to angiography guidance. Appropriately powered randomised trials are necessary to confirm the findings from this meta-analysis.