CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

IVUS Guidance

Abstract

Recommended Article

Impact of plaque components on no-reflow phenomenon after stent deployment in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a virtual histology-intravascular ultrasound analysis The Role of Vascular Imaging in Guiding Routine Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: A Meta-Analysis of Bare Metal Stent and Drug-Eluting Stent Trials Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Vulnerable Coronary Atherosclerotic Plaque Consensus from the 5th European Bifurcation Club meeting Prospective application of pre-defined intravascular ultrasound criteria for assessment of intermediate left main coronary artery lesions results from the multicenter LITRO study Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance vs. Angiographic Guidance in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction - Long-Term Clinical Outcomes From the CREDO-Kyoto AMI Registry American College of Cardiology Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Standards for Acquisition, Measurement and Reporting of Intravascular Ultrasound Studies (IVUS). A report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents Assessment of coronary atherosclerosis by IVUS and IVUS-based imaging modalities: progression and regression studies, tissue composition and beyond

Clinical Trial2014 Nov;7(11):1287-93.

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Intravascular ultrasound guidance to minimize the use of iodine contrast in percutaneous coronary intervention: the MOZART (Minimizing cOntrast utiliZation With IVUS Guidance in coRonary angioplasTy) randomized controlled trial

Mariani J Jr, Guedes C, Lemos PA et al. Keywords: contrast; coronary intravascular ultrasound; renal failure; stent

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance on the final volume of contrast agent used in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).


BACKGROUND - To date, few approaches have been described to reduce the final dose of contrast agent in PCIs. We hypothesized that IVUS might serve as an alternative imaging tool to angiography in many steps during PCI, thereby reducing the use of iodine contrast.

METHODS - A total of 83 patients were randomized to angiography-guided PCI or IVUS-guided PCI; both groups were treated according to a pre-defined meticulous procedural strategy. The primary endpoint was the total volume contrast agent used during PCI. Patients were followed clinically for an average of 4 months.

RESULTS - The median total volume of contrast was 64.5 ml (interquartile range [IQR]: 42.8 to 97.0 ml; minimum, 19 ml; maximum, 170 ml) in the angiography-guided group versus 20.0 ml (IQR: 12.5 to 30.0 ml; minimum, 3 ml; maximum, 54 ml) in the IVUS-guided group (p < 0.001). Similarly, the median volume of contrast/creatinine clearance ratio was significantly lower among patients treated with IVUS-guided PCI (1.0 [IQR: 0.6 to 1.9] vs. 0.4 [IQR: 0.2 to 0.6, respectively; p < 0.001). In-hospital and 4-month outcomes were not different between patients randomized to angiography-guided and IVUS-guided PCI.

CONCLUSIONS - Thoughtful and extensive use of IVUS as the primary imaging tool to guide PCI is safe and markedly reduces the volume of iodine contrast compared with angiography-alone guidance. The use of IVUS should be considered for patients at high risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury or volume overload undergoing coronary angioplasty. (Minimizing cOntrast utiliZation With IVUS Guidance in coRonary angioplasTy [MOZART]; NCT01947335).

Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.