CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

DAPT Duration

科研文章

荐读文献

Elaborately Engineering a Self-Indicating Dual-Drug Nanoassembly for Site-Specific Photothermal-Potentiated Thrombus Penetration and Thrombolysis Comparison of 1-month Versus 12-month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy after Implantation of Drug-eluting Stents Guided by either Intravascular Ultrasound or Angiography in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: Rationale and Design of Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled IVUS-ACS & ULTIMATE-DAPT trial 2016 ACC/AHA guideline focused update on duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Duration in Medically Managed Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients: Sub-Analysis of the OPT-CAD Study Antibody-Based Ticagrelor Reversal Agent in Healthy Volunteers 6-month versus 12-month or longer dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome (SMART-DATE): a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial Patient-oriented composite endpoints and net adverse clinical events with ticagrelor monotherapy following percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the randomized GLOBAL LEADERS trial Dual Antiplatelet TherapyIs It Time to Cut the Cord With Aspirin? Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Duration: Reconciling the Inconsistencies Prevention of Bleeding in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing PCI

Review Article2016 Aug 1;216:133-9.

JOURNAL:Int J Cardiol. Article Link

Intravascular ultrasound-guided drug-eluting stent implantation: An updated meta-analysis of randomized control trials and observational studies

Steinvil A, Zhang YJ, Garcia-Garcia HM et al. Keywords: Angiography; Drug-eluting stent; Intravascular ultrasound; Meta-analysis

ABSTRACT


The use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance for drug-eluting stent (DES) optimization is limited by the number of adequately powered randomized control trials (RCTs). We performed an updated meta-analysis, including data from recently published RCTs and observational studies, by reviewing the literature in Medline and the Cochrane Library to identify studies that compared clinical outcomes between IVUS-guided and angiography-guided DES implantation from January 1995 to January 2016. This meta-analysis included 25 eligible studies, including 31,283 patients, of whom 3192 patients were enrolled in 7 RCTs. In an analysis of all 25 studies, the summary results for all the events analyzed were significantly in favor of IVUS-guided DES implantation [major adverse cardiac events (MACE, odds ratio [OR] 0.76, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.70-0.82, P<0.001); death (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.54-0.72, P<0.001); myocardial infarction (OR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.56-0.80, P<0.001); stent thrombosis (OR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.47-0.73, P<0.001); target lesion revascularization (TLR, OR 0.77, 95% CI: 0.67-0.89, P=0.005); target vessel revascularization (TVR, OR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.76-0.95, P<0.001)]. However, in a separate analysis of RCTs, a favorable result for IVUS-guided DES implantation was found only for MACE (OR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.52-0.84, P=0.001), TLR (OR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.43-0.87, P=0.006), and TVR (OR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.41-0.90, P=0.013). IVUS-guided percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with better overall clinical outcomes than angiography-guided DES implantation. However, in a solely RCT meta-analysis, this benefit was mainly driven by reduced rates of revascularizations.