CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

IVUS Guidance

Abstract

Recommended Article

Histopathologic validation of the intravascular ultrasound diagnosis of calcified coronary artery nodules Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance Reduces Cardiac Death and Coronary Revascularization in Patients Undergoing Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: Results From a Meta-Analysis of 9 Randomized Trials and 4724 Patients Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance vs. Angiographic Guidance in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction - Long-Term Clinical Outcomes From the CREDO-Kyoto AMI Registry 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 Impact of plaque components on no-reflow phenomenon after stent deployment in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a virtual histology-intravascular ultrasound analysis Usefulness of intravascular ultrasound to predict outcomes in short-length lesions treated with drug-eluting stents Impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance on long-term mortality in stenting for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis Comprehensive intravascular ultrasound assessment of stent area and its impact on restenosis and adverse cardiac events in 403 patients with unprotected left main disease

Review Article2017 Jan 20;12(13):1632-1642.

JOURNAL:EuroIntervention. Article Link

Intravascular ultrasound guidance improves clinical outcomes during implantation of both first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis

Nerlekar N, Cheshire CJ, Verma KP et al. Keywords: coronary angioplasty; intravascular ultrasound; percutaneous coronary intervention; drug-eluting stent; meta-analysis

ABSTRACT


AIMS - Our aim was to assess whether intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) improves clinical outcomes during implantation of first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES). IVUS guidance is associated with improved clinical outcomes during DES implantation, but it is unknown whether this benefit is limited to either first- or second-generation devices.

METHODS AND RESULTS - MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed were searched for studies comparing outcomes between IVUS- and angiography-guided PCI. Among 909 potentially relevant studies, 15 trials met the inclusion criteria. The primary endpoint was MACE, defined as death, myocardial infarction, target vessel/lesion revascularisation (TVR/TLR) or stent thrombosis (ST). Summary estimates were obtained using Peto modelling. In total, 9,313 patients from six randomised trials and nine observational studies were included. First-generation DES were implanted in 6,156 patients (3,064IVUS-guided and 3,092 angiography-guided) and second-generation in 3,157 patients (1,528IVUS-guided and 1,629 angiography-guided). IVUS guidance was associated with a significant reduction in MACE (odds ratio [OR] 0.73, 95% CI: 0.64-0.85, p<0.001), across both first- (OR 0.79, 95% CI: 0.67-0.92, p=0.01) and second-generation DES (0.57, 95% CI: 0.43-0.77, p<0.001). For second-generation DES, IVUS guidance was associated with significantly lower rates of cardiac death (OR 0.33, 95% CI: 0.14-0.78, p=0.02), TVR (OR 0.47, 95% CI: 0.28-0.79, p=0.006), TLR (OR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.42-0.90, p=0.01) and ST (OR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.12-0.78, p=0.02). Cumulative meta-analysis highlighted progressive temporal benefit towards IVUS-guided PCI to reduce MACE (OR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.48-0.75, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS - IVUS guidance is associated with a significant reduction in MACE during implantation of both first- and second-generation DES platforms. These data support the use of IVUS guidance in contemporary revascularisation procedures using second-generation DES.