CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

DAPT Duration

Abstract

Recommended Article

Efficacy and Safety of Ticagrelor Monotherapy in Patients Undergoing Multivessel PCI A risk score to predict postdischarge bleeding among acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: BRIC-ACS study Ticagrelor Monotherapy Versus Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy After PCI: An Individual Patient-Level Meta-Analysis Global Approach to High Bleeding Risk Patients With Polymer-Free Drug-Coated Coronary Stents: The LF II Study Safety and efficacy of the bioabsorbable polymer everolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents in high-risk patients undergoing PCI: TWILIGHT-SYNERGY Optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation: a randomized, controlled trial. Impact of bleeding during dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease Ticagrelor Monotherapy Versus Ticagrelor With Aspirin in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Review Article2015 Nov 17;15:153.

JOURNAL:BMC Cardiovasc Disord. Article Link

Comparison of intravascular ultrasound guided versus angiography guided drug eluting stent implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Zhang YJ, Pang S, Chen SL et al. Keywords: IVUS; angiography; PCI; outcome

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) can be a useful tool during drug-eluting stents (DES) implantation as it allows accurate assessment of lesion severity and optimal treatment planning. However, numerous reports have shown that IVUS guided percutaneous coronary intervention is not associated with improved clinical outcomes, especially in non-complex patients and lesions.


METHODS - We searched the literature in Medline, the Cochrane Library, and other internet sources to identify studies that compare clinical outcomes between IVUS-guided and angiography-guided DES implantation. Random-effects model was used to assess treatment effect.

RESULTS - Twenty eligible studies with a total of 29,068 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The use of IVUS was associated with significant reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, odds ratios [OR] 0.77, 95 % confidence intervals [CI] 0.71-0.83, P < 0.001), death (OR 0.62, 95 % CI 0.54-0.71, p < 0.001), and stent thrombosis (OR 0.59, 95 % CI: 0.47-0.73, P < 0.001). The benefit was also seen in the repeated analysis of matched and randomized studies. In stratified analysis, IVUS guidance appeared to be beneficial not only in patients with complex lesions or acute coronary syndromes (ACS) but also patients with mixed lesions or presentations (MACE: OR 0.69, 95 % CI: 0.60-0.79, p < 0.001, OR 0.81, 95 % CI 0.74-0.90, p < 0.001, respectively). By employing meta-regression analysis, the benefit of IVUS is significantly pronounced in patients with complex lesions or ACS with respect to death (p = 0.048).

CONCLUSIONS - IVUS guidance was associated with improved clinical outcomes, especially in patients with complex lesions admitted with ACS. Large, randomized clinical trials are warranted to identify populations and lesion characteristics where IVUS guidance would be associated with better outcomes.