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
|<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...>>|

Review Article2016 Aug 1;216:133-9.

JOURNAL：Int J Cardiol. Article Link

Intravascular ultrasound-guided drug-eluting stent implantation: An updated meta-analysis of randomized control trials and observational studies

Steinvil A, Zhang YJ, Garcia-Garcia HM et al. Keywords: Angiography; Drug-eluting stent; Intravascular ultrasound; Meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

The use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance for drug-eluting stent (DES) optimization is limited by the number of adequately powered randomized control trials (RCTs). We performed an updated meta-analysis, including data from recently published RCTs and observational studies, by reviewing the literature in Medline and the Cochrane Library to identify studies that compared clinical outcomes between IVUS-guided and angiography-guided DES implantation from January 1995 to January 2016. This meta-analysis included 25 eligible studies, including 31,283 patients, of whom 3192 patients were enrolled in 7 RCTs. In an analysis of all 25 studies, the summary results for all the events analyzed were significantly in favor of IVUS-guided DES implantation [major adverse cardiac events (MACE, odds ratio [OR] 0.76, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.70-0.82, P<0.001); death (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.54-0.72, P<0.001); myocardial infarction (OR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.56-0.80, P<0.001); stent thrombosis (OR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.47-0.73, P<0.001); target lesion revascularization (TLR, OR 0.77, 95% CI: 0.67-0.89, P=0.005); target vessel revascularization (TVR, OR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.76-0.95, P<0.001)]. However, in a separate analysis of RCTs, a favorable result for IVUS-guided DES implantation was found only for MACE (OR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.52-0.84, P=0.001), TLR (OR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.43-0.87, P=0.006), and TVR (OR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.41-0.90, P=0.013). IVUS-guided percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with better overall clinical outcomes than angiography-guided DES implantation. However, in a solely RCT meta-analysis, this benefit was mainly driven by reduced rates of revascularizations.

>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 REGISTRATION

> CBS 2019 PROGRAM

> CBS 2019 CALL FOR SCIENCE

> CBS 2019 SPOTLIGHTS

 CBSMD

> CBSMD WEBSITE REGISTRATION

> EDUCATION CENTER

> RECOMMANDED PAPER

> TOP 10 RESEARCH PAPER

> PRE-READING

CBS 2019 CBS 2019 FACULTY Education Resource CBSMD Scientific Library
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top