CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

血流储备分数

科研文章

荐读文献

Retrospective Comparison of Long-Term Clinical Outcomes Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Medical Therapy in Stable Coronary Artery Disease With Gray Zone Fractional Flow Reserve - COMFORTABLE Retrospective Study Lesion-Specific and Vessel-Related Determinants of Fractional Flow Reserve Beyond Coronary Artery Stenosis Physiological Stratification of Patients With Angina Due to Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction Randomized Comparison of FFR-Guided and Angiography-Guided Provisional Stenting of True Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: The DKCRUSH-VI Trial (Double Kissing Crush Versus Provisional Stenting Technique for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions VI) Anatomical and Functional Computed Tomography for Diagnosing Hemodynamically Significant Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis Diagnostic Performance of Angiogram-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve: A Pooled Analysis of 5 Prospective Cohort Studies Utilization and Outcomes of Measuring Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease The Impact of Coronary Physiology on Contemporary Clinical Decision Making Coronary Physiology in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Fractional flow reserve in clinical practice: from wire-based invasive measurement to image-based computation

Original Research2019 Apr 8;12(7):607-620.

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Complex Procedures

Choi KH, Song YB, Hahn JY et al. Keywords: angiography; complex lesion; intravascular ultrasound; outcomes; percutaneous coronary intervention

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES - This study sought to determine whether intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance compared with angiographic guidance reduces long-term risk of cardiac death in patients undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

 

BACKGROUND - Although IVUS is a useful tool for accurate assessment of lesion profiles and optimal stent implantation, there are limited data on long-term clinical outcomes between IVUS-guided and angiography-guided PCI for patients with complex lesions.

 

METHODS - From March 2003 through December 2015, a total of 6,005 patients undergoing PCI for complex lesions with drug-eluting stents were enrolled from a prospective institutional registry. All enrolled subjects had at least 1 complex lesion (defined as bifurcation, chronic total occlusion, left main disease, long lesion, multivessel PCI, multiple stent implantation, in-stent restenosis, or heavily calcified lesion). Patients were classified according to use of IVUS or not. Multiple sensitivity analyses, including multivariable adjustment, propensity-score matching, and inverse-probability-weighted method, were performed to adjust baseline differences.

 

RESULTS - Among the study population, IVUS was used in 1,674 patients (27.9%) during complex PCI. The IVUS-guided PCI group had a significantly larger mean stent diameter (3.2 ± 0.4 vs. 3.0 ± 0.4; p < 0.001), and more frequent use of post-dilatation (49.0% vs. 17.9%; p < 0.001) compared with the angiography-guided PCI group. IVUS-guided PCI was associated with a significantly lower risk of cardiac death during 64 months of median follow-up compared with angiography-guided PCI (10.2% vs. 16.9%; hazard ratio: 0.573; 95% confidence interval: 0.460 to 0.714; p < 0.001). Results were consistent after multivariable regression, propensity-score matching, and inverse-probability-weighted method. The risks of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, and major adverse cardiac events were also significantly lower in the IVUS-guided PCI group.

 

CONCLUSIONS - Among patients with complex coronary artery lesion, IVUS-guided PCI was associated with the lower long-term risk of cardiac death and adverse cardiac events compared with angiography-guided PCI. Use of IVUS should be actively considered for complex PCI.

 

Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.