CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Drug-Coated Balloon Treatment for Femoropopliteal Artery Disease: The IN.PACT Global Study De Novo In-Stent Restenosis Imaging Cohort Left Ventricular Assist Devices for Lifelong Support Long-Term Outcomes of Biodegradable Versus Second-Generation Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stent Implantations for Myocardial Infarction Mortality 10 Years After Percutaneous or Surgical Revascularization in Patients With Total Coronary Artery Occlusions Macrophage MST1/2 Disruption Impairs Post-Infarction Cardiac Repair via LTB4 Statin Safety and Associated Adverse Events: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Prevalence of Angina Among Primary Care Patients With Coronary Artery Disease 2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines Multivessel Versus Culprit-Vessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Cardiogenic Shock Radionuclide Image-Guided Repair of the Heart

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.