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 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 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 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

Original Research2011 Jul 1;108(1):8-14.

JOURNAL:Am J Cardiol. Article Link

Role of intravascular ultrasound in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Ahmed K, Jeong MH, Other Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry Investigators. Keywords: IVUS guided PCI;AMI; DES; outcome

ABSTRACT


Stent thrombosis and restenosis remain drawbacks of drug-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance for stent deployment helps optimize its results in stable patients. The aim of this study was to examine the utility of routine IVUS guidance in patients with AMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Employing data from Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR), we analyzed 14,329 patients with AMI from April 2006 through September 2010. Patients with cardiogenic shock and rescue PCI after thrombolysis were excluded. Clinical outcomes of 2,127 patients who underwent IVUS-guided PCI were compared to those of 8,235 patients who did not. Mean age was 63.6 ± 13.5 years and 72.3% were men. Patients undergoing IVUS-guided PCI were younger, more often men, more hyperlipemic, and had increased body mass index and left ventricular ejection fraction. Number of treated vessels and stents used, stent length, and stent diameter were increased in the IVUS-guided group. Multivessel involvement was less frequent and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association type C lesion was more frequent in the IVUS-guided group. Drug-eluting stents were more frequently used compared to bare-metal stents in the IVUS group. There was no significant relation of stent thrombosis between the 2 groups. Twelve-month all-cause death was lower in the IVUS group. After multivariate analysis and propensity score adjustment, IVUS guidance was not an independent predictor for 12-month all-cause death (hazard ratio 0.212, 0.026 to 1.73, p = 0.148). In conclusion, this study does not support routine use of IVUS guidance for stent deployment in patients who present with AMI and undergo PCI.