CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

IVUS Guidance

Abstract

Recommended Article

Is intravascular ultrasound beneficial for percutaneous coronary intervention of bifurcation lesions? Evidence from a 4,314-patient registry Intravascular ultrasound predictors for edge restenosis after newer generation drug-eluting stent implantation Clinical impact of PCSK9 inhibitor on stabilization and regression of lipid-rich coronary plaques: a near-infrared spectroscopy study Intravascular Ultrasound-Derived Virtual Fractional Flow Reserve for the Assessment of Myocardial Ischemia Differential prognostic effect of intravascular ultrasound use according to implanted stent length 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 Comprehensive intravascular ultrasound assessment of stent area and its impact on restenosis and adverse cardiac events in 403 patients with unprotected left main disease Impact of plaque components on no-reflow phenomenon after stent deployment in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a virtual histology-intravascular ultrasound analysis

Clinical Trial2014 Nov;7(11):1287-93.

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Intravascular ultrasound guidance to minimize the use of iodine contrast in percutaneous coronary intervention: the MOZART (Minimizing cOntrast utiliZation With IVUS Guidance in coRonary angioplasTy) randomized controlled trial

Mariani J Jr, Guedes C, Lemos PA et al. Keywords: contrast; coronary intravascular ultrasound; renal failure; stent

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance on the final volume of contrast agent used in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).


BACKGROUND - To date, few approaches have been described to reduce the final dose of contrast agent in PCIs. We hypothesized that IVUS might serve as an alternative imaging tool to angiography in many steps during PCI, thereby reducing the use of iodine contrast.

METHODS - A total of 83 patients were randomized to angiography-guided PCI or IVUS-guided PCI; both groups were treated according to a pre-defined meticulous procedural strategy. The primary endpoint was the total volume contrast agent used during PCI. Patients were followed clinically for an average of 4 months.

RESULTS - The median total volume of contrast was 64.5 ml (interquartile range [IQR]: 42.8 to 97.0 ml; minimum, 19 ml; maximum, 170 ml) in the angiography-guided group versus 20.0 ml (IQR: 12.5 to 30.0 ml; minimum, 3 ml; maximum, 54 ml) in the IVUS-guided group (p < 0.001). Similarly, the median volume of contrast/creatinine clearance ratio was significantly lower among patients treated with IVUS-guided PCI (1.0 [IQR: 0.6 to 1.9] vs. 0.4 [IQR: 0.2 to 0.6, respectively; p < 0.001). In-hospital and 4-month outcomes were not different between patients randomized to angiography-guided and IVUS-guided PCI.

CONCLUSIONS - Thoughtful and extensive use of IVUS as the primary imaging tool to guide PCI is safe and markedly reduces the volume of iodine contrast compared with angiography-alone guidance. The use of IVUS should be considered for patients at high risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury or volume overload undergoing coronary angioplasty. (Minimizing cOntrast utiliZation With IVUS Guidance in coRonary angioplasTy [MOZART]; NCT01947335).

Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.