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 Intravascular imaging in coronary artery disease Optical coherence tomography is a kid on the block: I would choose intravascular ultrasound Intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in left main coronary bifurcation lesions: a review 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 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

Review Article2013 Dec 5;170(1):54-63.

JOURNAL:Int J Cardiol. Article Link

Use of IVUS guided coronary stenting with drug eluting stent: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials and high quality observational studies

Klersy C, Ferlini M, Raisaro A et al. Keywords: IVUS guidance; DES implantation; MACE, mortality; MI

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES - Long term safety of DES, particularly regarding thrombosis is of concern. The hypothesized underlying mechanisms (stent under expansion, malapposition) could be prevented by IVUS guidance. Aim of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) and high quality observational cohort studies (HQ-OBS) is to quantify the potential clinical benefit of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance in drug-eluting stents (DES) implantation.


METHODS - We performed an extensive literature search for full-text articles published in 2003–2013. The primary outcome was the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in RCT and HQ-OBS; secondary outcomes were death, myocardial infarction (MI), revascularization, thrombosis and post-procedural minimum lumen diameter (MLD). Fixed/random effect relative risks (RRs) or standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were computed for the meta-analysis.


RESULTS - Thirty-four articles were retrieved from 268 found; of these 3 were RCT and 9 were HQ-OBS; 18,707 patients were enrolled, 1037 in RCT and 17,670 in OBS. Median follow-up was 20 months. IVUS guidance was associated with a significantly lower rate of MACE (RR=0.80, 95% CI 0.71–0.89, p b 0.001), death (RR=0.60, 95% CI 0.48–0.74, p b 0.001), MI (RR=0.59, 95% CI 0.44–0.80, p=0.001) and thrombosis (RR=0.50, 95% CI 0.32–0.80, p=0.007) and larger MLD (SMD=0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.27, p=0.014), but not of revascularization (RR=0.95, 95% CI 0.82–1.09, p=0.75).


CONCLUSIONS - In this meta-analysis, IVUS guidance in DES implantation appears to reduce MACE, mortality and MI, possibly by reducing thrombosis rather than restenosis rate. Patients at high risk for thrombosis might be identified as the best candidate for IVUS guidance.