CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

血管内超声指导

Abstract

Recommended Article

Assessment of coronary atherosclerosis by IVUS and IVUS-based imaging modalities: progression and regression studies, tissue composition and beyond Comparison of intravascular ultrasound guided versus angiography guided drug eluting stent implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis Role of Proximal Optimization Technique Guided by Intravascular Ultrasound on Stent Expansion, Stent Symmetry Index, and Side-Branch Hemodynamics in Patients With Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Temporal Trends in Inpatient Use of Intravascular Imaging Among Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States Outcomes with intravascular ultrasound-guided stent implantation: a meta-analysis of randomized trials in the era of drug-eluting stents First-in-man evaluation of intravascular optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI) of Terumo: a comparison with intravascular ultrasound and quantitative coronary angiography A Randomized Study of Distal Filter Protection Versus Conventional Treatment During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Attenuated Plaque Identified by Intravascular Ultrasound Intravascular ultrasound predictors for edge restenosis after newer generation drug-eluting stent implantation

Review Article2018 Feb 1;252:63-67.

JOURNAL:Int J Cardiol. Article Link

FFR-guided multivessel stenting reduces urgent revascularization compared with infarct-related artery only stenting in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Gupta A, Bajaj NS, Bhatt DL et al. Keywords: FFR; Meta-analysis; Multivessel; PCI; STEMI; Stenting

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown fractional flow reserve-guided (FFR) multivessel stenting to be superior to infarct-related artery (IRA) only stenting in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease. This effect was mainly driven by a reduction in overall repeat revascularization. However, the ability to assess the effect of this strategy on urgent revascularization or reinfarction was underpowered in individual trials.


METHODS - We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science for RCTs of FFR-guided multivessel stenting versus IRA-only stenting in STEMI with multivessel disease. The outcomes of interest were death, reinfarction, urgent, and non-urgent repeat revascularization. Risk ratios (RR) were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model.


RESULTS - After review of 786 citations, 2 RCTs were included. The pooled results demonstrated a significant reduction in the composite of death, reinfarction, or revascularization in the FFR-guided multivessel stenting group versus IRA-only stenting group (RR [95%, Confidence Interval]: 0.49 [0.33-0.72], p<0.001). This risk reduction was driven mainly by a reduction in repeat revascularization, both urgent (0.41 [0.24-0.71], p=0.002) and non-urgent revascularization (0.31 [0.19-0.50], p<0.001). Pooled RR for reinfarction was lower in the FFR-guided strategy, but was not statistically significant (0.71[0.39-1.31], p=0.28).


CONCLUSIONS - This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that a strategy of FFR-guided multivessel stenting in STEMI patients reduces not only overall repeat revascularization but also urgent revascularization. The effect on reinfarction needs to be evaluated in larger trials.


Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.