CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

科学研究

Abstract

Recommended Article

Impact of lesion complexity on peri-procedural adverse events and the benefit of potent intravenous platelet adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibition after percutaneous coronary intervention: core laboratory analysis from 10 854 patients from the CHAMPION PHOENIX trial Contemporary use of drug-coated balloons in coronary artery disease: Where are we now? The performance of non-invasive tests to rule-in and rule-out significant coronary artery stenosis in patients with stable angina: a meta-analysis focused on post-test disease probability A prospective natural-history study of coronary atherosclerosis The Year in Cardiovascular Medicine 2020: Coronary Intervention Treating Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Why, How, and When? Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Interventional Cardiology: From Decision-Making Aid to Advanced Interventional Procedure Assistance Comparison of Heart Team vs Interventional Cardiologist Recommendations for the Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease
|<<... 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 ...>>|

Original ResearchFebruary 2019, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 239–247

JOURNAL：Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Article Link

Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance Reduces Cardiac Death and Coronary Revascularization in Patients Undergoing Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: Results From a Meta-Analysis of 9 Randomized Trials and 4724 Patients

XF Gao, ZM Wang, F Wang et al. Keywords: angiography; drug-eluting stents; intravascular ultrasound; meta-analysis; optimal criteria

ABSTRACT

Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance is not routinely performed in real-word clinical practice partly because the benefit of IVUS guidance is not well established. This updated meta-analysis aims to compare IVUS-guided and angiography-guided drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation, simultaneously stressing the value of an optimal IVUS-defined procedure. Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry were searched for the randomized trials comparing IVUS-guided and angiography-guided DES implantation. Nine eligible randomized trials including 4,724 patients were identified. At a mean follow-up of 16.7 months, IVUS guidance was associated with a significant lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) [5.4% vs. 9.0%; relative risks (RR): 0.61, 95% confident interval (CI) 0.49–0.74, p < 0.001], cardiac death (0.6% vs. 1.2%; RR: 0.49, 95% CI 0.26–0.92, p = 0.03), target vessel revascularization (3.5% vs 6.1%; RR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.42–0.80, p = 0.001), target lesion revascularization (3.1% vs. 5.2%; RR: 0.59, 95% CI 0.44–0.80, p = 0.001), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (0.5% vs .1.1%; RR: 0.45, 95% CI 0.23–0.87, p = 0.02) compared with angiography guidance. No significant differences in all cause death and myocardial infarction were noted between the two groups. Subgroup analysis showed that patients who met the optimal criteria had a lower rate of MACE than those with IVUS-defined suboptimal procedure (RR: 0.33, 95% CI 0.06–0.60, p = 0.02). The present meta-analysis with the largest sample size to date demonstrates that IVUS-guided DES implantation significantly reduces cardiac death, coronary revascularization and stent thrombosis, particularly for patients with IVUS-defined optimal procedures compared with angiography guidance.

>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 REGISTRATION

> CBS 2019 PROGRAM

> CBS 2019 CALL FOR SCIENCE

> CBS 2019 SPOTLIGHTS

 CBSMD

> CBSMD WEBSITE REGISTRATION

> EDUCATION CENTER

> RECOMMANDED PAPER

> TOP 10 RESEARCH PAPER

> PRE-READING

CBS 2019 CBS 2019 FACULTY Education Resource CBSMD Scientific Library
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top