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 Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Duration in Medically Managed Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients: Sub-Analysis of the OPT-CAD Study 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 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 Patient-oriented composite endpoints and net adverse clinical events with ticagrelor monotherapy following percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the randomized GLOBAL LEADERS trial Antibody-Based Ticagrelor Reversal Agent in Healthy Volunteers Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Duration: Reconciling the Inconsistencies Dual Antithrombotic Therapy with Dabigatran after PCI in Atrial Fibrillation Dual Antiplatelet TherapyIs It Time to Cut the Cord With Aspirin? 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.