CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

IVUS Guidance

Abstract

Recommended Article

Effects of Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Versus Angiography-Guided New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: Meta-Analysis With Individual Patient-Level Data From 2,345 Randomized Patients Intravascular Ultrasound Parameters Associated With Stent Thrombosis After Drug-Eluting Stent Deployment Meta-analysis of outcomes after intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation in 26,503 patients enrolled in three randomized trials and 14 observational studies Contribution of stent underexpansion to recurrence after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for in-stent restenosis Comparison of paclitaxel-eluting stents (Taxus) and everolimus-eluting stents (Xience) in left main coronary artery disease with 3 years follow-up (from the ESTROFA-LM registry) Defining a new standard for IVUS optimized drug eluting stent implantation: the PRAVIO study Intravascular Ultrasound-Derived Virtual Fractional Flow Reserve for the Assessment of Myocardial Ischemia Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance Is Associated With Better Outcome in Patients Undergoing Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting Compared With Angiography Guidance Alone
|<<... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 >>|

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