CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

IVUS Guidance

Abstract

Recommended Article

Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Implantation of Drug-Eluting Stent in All-Comers: The ULTIMATE trial IVUS Guidance Is Associated With Better Outcome in Patients Undergoing Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting Compared With Angiography Guidance Alone Intravascular imaging in coronary artery disease Optical coherence tomography is a kid on the block: I would choose intravascular ultrasound Intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in left main coronary bifurcation lesions: a review The Year in Cardiovascular Medicine 2020: Imaging: Looking back on the Year in Cardiovascular Medicine for 2020 in the field of imaging are Fausto Pinto, José Luis Zamorano and Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci. Judy Ozkan speaks with them Does calcium burden impact culprit lesion morphology and clinical results? An ADAPT-DES IVUS substudy Intravascular ultrasound guidance in drug-eluting stents implantation: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials

Original Research2015 Oct;11(6):625-33.

JOURNAL:EuroIntervention. Article Link

The effect of complete percutaneous revascularisation with and without intravascular ultrasound guidance in the drugeluting stent era

Magalhaes MA, Minha S, Torguson R et al. Keywords: IVUS; DES; complete revascularisation

ABSTRACT


AIMS - Our aim was to compare the outcomes of complete revascularisation (CR) and incomplete revascularisation (IR) in multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD), with and without intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance, in the drug-eluting stent (DES) era.


METHODS AND RESULTS - Overall, 2,132 consecutive patients with multivessel CAD, defined as at least two epicardial vessels with >70% stenosis, had at least one DES implant. Chronic total occlusions were not analysed. Successful treatment of epicardial vessels and significant branches was termed CR; otherwise, treatment was defined as IR. CR and IR were further categorised according to the use of IVUS. The primary outcome was death or Q-wave myocardial infarction (QWMI). Secondary outcomes included the rates of non-QWMI and repeat revascularisation, the latter assessed as either target vessel revascularisation (TVR) or target lesion revascularisation (TLR) at one year. CR was associated with lower rates of death/QWMI (HR 0.66 [0.4-0.9]; p=0.048) and non-QWMI at one year (1.1% vs. 2.6%; p=0.017). Completeness of revascularisation was not independently associated with repeat intervention, but rates of both TVR (89% vs. 93%; p<0.001) and TLR (91% vs. 95%; p<0.001) were higher with CR than IR. IVUS decreased the rates of TLR irrespective of completeness of revascularisation (p-interaction=0.75).


CONCLUSIONS - CR in selected patients gives better outcomes than IR in multivessel CAD at one year. IVUS guidance can further improve results by reducing rates of repeat intervention irrespective of completeness of revascularisation.