CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

科学研究

Abstract

Recommended Article

Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes Two-year outcomes following unprotected left main stenting with first vs new-generation drug-eluting stents: the FINE registry. EuroIntervention. Successful bailout stenting strategy against lethal coronary dissection involving left main bifurcation Positive remodeling at 3 year follow up is associated with plaque-free coronary wall segment at baseline: a serial IVUS study Intracoronary stenting without anticoagulation accomplished with intravascular ultrasound guidance Active SB-P Versus Conventional Approach to the Protection of High-Risk Side Branches: The CIT-RESOLVE Trial Differential prognostic impact of treatment strategy among patients with left main versus non-left main bifurcation lesions undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the COBIS (Coronary Bifurcation Stenting) Registry II Noninvasive Imaging for the Evaluation of Diastolic Function: Promises Fulfilled

Clinical TrialSeptember 2018

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Implantation of Drug-Eluting Stent in All-Comers: The ULTIMATE trial

JJ Zhang, XF Gao, SL Chen et al. Keywords: Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation; angiography guidance; MACE

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation is associated with less major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) compared with angiography guidance for patients with individual lesion subset. However, the beneficiary effect on MACE outcome of IVUS guidance over angiography guidance in all-comers who undergo DES implantation still remains understudied.


OBJECTIVES -This study aimed to determine the benefits of IVUS guidance over angiography guidance during DES implantation in all-comer patients.


METHODS - A total of 1448 all-comer patients who required DES implantation were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to either IVUS guidance or Angiography guidance group. Primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF) at 12 months, including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), and clinically-driven target vessel revascularization (TVR). Procedure was defined as success if IVUS-defined all optimal criteria were met.


RESULTS - At 12 months follow-up, 60 (4.2%) TVFs occurred, with 21 (2.9%) in the IVUS group and 39 (5.4%) in the Angiography group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.530, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.312-0.901; p=0.019). In the IVUS group, TVF was recorded in 1.6% of patients with successful procedures, compared to 4.4% in patients who failed to achieve all optimal criteria (HR: 0.349; 95%CI: 0.135-0.898; p=0.029). The significant reduction of clinically-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) or definite stent thrombosis (HR: 0.407; 95% CI: 0.188-0.880; p=0.018) based-on lesion level analysis by IVUS guidance was not achieved when patient-level analysis was performed.


CONCLUSIONS -The present study demonstrated that IVUS-guided DES implantation significantly improved clinical outcome in all-comers, particularly for patients who had an IVUS-defined optimal procedure, compared to angiography guidance.


CONSENDED ABSTRACT - A total of 1448 all-comers who required DES implantation were randomly assigned to either IVUS or Angiography guidance group. At 12 months follow-up, TVF occurred in 21 patients (2.9%) in IVUS guidance group and 39 patients (5.4%) in Angiography guidance group (p=0.019). In the IVUS group, TVF was recorded in 1.6% of patients with successful procedures, compared to 4.4% in patients who failed to achieve all optimal criteria (p=0.029). Compared to Angiography guidance, IVUS guidance benefited similarly for patients with either ACC/AHA-defined B2/C lesions or A/B1 lesions in terms of composite of clinically-driven TLR or definite ST.