CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

DAPT Duration

Abstract

Recommended Article

Evolution of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a 40-year journey Trial Design Principles for Patients at High Bleeding Risk Undergoing PCI: JACC Scientific Expert Panel Consensus Document ANMCO/ANCE/ARCA/GICR-IACPR/GISE/SICOA: Long-term Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy Cessation and Cardiovascular Risk in Relation to Age: Analysis From the PARIS Registry Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin Versus Aspirin in Relation to Vascular Risk in the COMPASS Trial The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after coronary stent implantation: to go too far is as bad as to fall short Twelve or 30 months of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stents A risk score to predict postdischarge bleeding among acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: BRIC-ACS study

Review Article2017 Apr, Epub 2017 Mar 22

JOURNAL:Anatol J Cardiol. Article Link

The outcomes of intravascular ultrasound-guided drug-eluting stent implantation among patients with complex coronary lesions: a comprehensive meta-analysis of 15 clinical trials and 8,084 patients

Fan ZG, Gao XF, Tian NL et al. Keywords: intravascular ultrasound, drug-eluting stent, complex lesions, meta-analysis

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVE - The effects of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in patients with complex coronary artery lesions remains to be controversial. This study sought to evaluate the outcomes of IVUS guidance in these patients.


METHODS- The EMBASE, Medline, and other internet sources were searched for relevant articles. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and target-vessel revascularization (TVR). The incidence of definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST) was analyzed as the safety endpoint.


RESULTS- Fifteen clinical trials involving 8.084 patients were analyzed. MACE risk was significantly decreased following IVUS-guided DES implantation compared with coronary angiography (CAG) guidance (odds ratio [OR] 0.63, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.53-0.73, p<0.001), which might mainly result from the lower all-cause mortality risk (OR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.40-0.67, p<0.001), MI (OR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.56-0.86, p=0.001), and TVR (OR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.40-0.70, p<0.001). The subgroup analyses indicated better outcomes of IVUS guidance in DES implantation for these patients with left main disease or bifurcation lesions.


CONCLUSION- IVUS guidance in DES implantation is associated with a significant reduction in MACE risk in patients with complex lesions, particularly those with left main disease or bifurcation lesions. More large and powerful randomized trials are still warranted to guide stenting decision making.