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 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.
>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