CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

科学研究

Abstract

Recommended Article

Left Main Revascularization in 2017 Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention? Impact of the US Food and Drug Administration–Approved Sex-Specific Cutoff Values for High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin T to Diagnose Myocardial Infarction Can We Use the Intrinsic Left Ventricular Delay (QLV) to Optimize the Pacing Configuration for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With a Quadripolar Left Ventricular Lead? Comparison of double kissing crush versus Culotte stenting for unprotected distal left main bifurcation lesions: results from a multicenter, randomized, prospective DKCRUSH-III study Usefulness of the SYNTAX score II to validate 2-year outcomes in patients with complex coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A large single-center study Use of Risk Assessment Tools to Guide Decision-Making in the Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease A Special Report From the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology In Vivo Calcium Detection by Comparing Optical Coherence Tomography, Intravascular Ultrasound, and Angiography Design and rationale for the treatment effects of provisional side branch stenting and DK crush stenting techniques in patients with unprotected distal left main coronary artery bifurcation lesions (DKCRUSH V) Trial

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.