CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

IVUS Guidance

Abstract

Recommended Article

Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Implantation of Drug-Eluting Stent in All-Comers: The ULTIMATE trial IVUS Guidance Is Associated With Better Outcome in Patients Undergoing Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting Compared With Angiography Guidance Alone Optical coherence tomography is a kid on the block: I would choose intravascular ultrasound The Year in Cardiovascular Medicine 2020: Imaging: Looking back on the Year in Cardiovascular Medicine for 2020 in the field of imaging are Fausto Pinto, José Luis Zamorano and Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci. Judy Ozkan speaks with them Intravascular imaging in coronary artery disease Intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in left main coronary bifurcation lesions: a review Does calcium burden impact culprit lesion morphology and clinical results? An ADAPT-DES IVUS substudy Intravascular ultrasound guidance in drug-eluting stents implantation: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials

Clinical TrialSeptember 2018

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Implantation of Drug-Eluting Stent in All-Comers: The ULTIMATE trial

JJ Zhang, XF Gao, SL Chen et al. Keywords: Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation; angiography guidance; MACE

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation is associated with less major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) compared with angiography guidance for patients with individual lesion subset. However, the beneficiary effect on MACE outcome of IVUS guidance over angiography guidance in all-comers who undergo DES implantation still remains understudied.


OBJECTIVES -This study aimed to determine the benefits of IVUS guidance over angiography guidance during DES implantation in all-comer patients.


METHODS - A total of 1448 all-comer patients who required DES implantation were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to either IVUS guidance or Angiography guidance group. Primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF) at 12 months, including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), and clinically-driven target vessel revascularization (TVR). Procedure was defined as success if IVUS-defined all optimal criteria were met.


RESULTS - At 12 months follow-up, 60 (4.2%) TVFs occurred, with 21 (2.9%) in the IVUS group and 39 (5.4%) in the Angiography group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.530, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.312-0.901; p=0.019). In the IVUS group, TVF was recorded in 1.6% of patients with successful procedures, compared to 4.4% in patients who failed to achieve all optimal criteria (HR: 0.349; 95%CI: 0.135-0.898; p=0.029). The significant reduction of clinically-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) or definite stent thrombosis (HR: 0.407; 95% CI: 0.188-0.880; p=0.018) based-on lesion level analysis by IVUS guidance was not achieved when patient-level analysis was performed.


CONCLUSIONS -The present study demonstrated that IVUS-guided DES implantation significantly improved clinical outcome in all-comers, particularly for patients who had an IVUS-defined optimal procedure, compared to angiography guidance.


CONSENDED ABSTRACT - A total of 1448 all-comers who required DES implantation were randomly assigned to either IVUS or Angiography guidance group. At 12 months follow-up, TVF occurred in 21 patients (2.9%) in IVUS guidance group and 39 patients (5.4%) in Angiography guidance group (p=0.019). In the IVUS group, TVF was recorded in 1.6% of patients with successful procedures, compared to 4.4% in patients who failed to achieve all optimal criteria (p=0.029). Compared to Angiography guidance, IVUS guidance benefited similarly for patients with either ACC/AHA-defined B2/C lesions or A/B1 lesions in terms of composite of clinically-driven TLR or definite ST.