CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

血管内超声指导

Abstract

Recommended Article

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) Intravascular Ultrasound and Angioscopy Assessment of Coronary Plaque Components in Chronic Totally Occluded Lesions In-stent neoatherosclerosis: a final common pathway of late stent failure Contribution of stent underexpansion to recurrence after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for in-stent restenosis Long-term outcomes with use of intravascular ultrasound for the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions Usefulness of minimum stent cross sectional area as a predictor of angiographic restenosis after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction (from the HORIZONS-AMI Trial IVUS substudy) 3-Year Outcomes of the ULTIMATE Trial Comparing Intravascular Ultrasound Versus Angiography-Guided Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation The role of integrated backscatter intravascular ultrasound in characterizing bare metal and drug-eluting stent restenotic neointima as compared to optical coherence tomography

Original Research2013 Mar 15;111(6):829-35.

JOURNAL:Am J Cardiol. Article Link

Differential prognostic effect of intravascular ultrasound use according to implanted stent length

Ahn JM, Han S, Park YK et al. Keywords: IVUS guided PCI; DES; outcome; stent length

ABSTRACT


It is unknown whether the use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance during percutaneous coronary intervention can attenuate the stent length effect on clinical outcomes. The aim of the present study was to determine the differential prognostic effect of IVUS according to the implanted stent length. We enrolled 3,244 consecutive patients from the Interventional Cardiology Research In-cooperation Society-Drug-Eluting Stents (IRIS-DES) registry who had undergone single or overlapping stent implantation. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (MACE; a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization). The study population was divided by the tertiles of implanted stent length and IVUS usage. IVUS use was at the discretion of the operator. After adjusting for significant covariates, the stent length was significantly associated with the risk of MACE in the no-IVUS group (hazard ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.28, p = 0.042) but not in the IVUS group (hazard ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.97 to 1.20, p = 0.16). In addition, in patients with an implanted stent length of ≤22 mm (n = 998), the risk of MACE was not significantly different between the IVUS group and the no-IVUS group (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 2.28, p = 0.88). In contrast, in patients with a longer implanted stent length, the risk of MACE was significantly lower in the IVUS group than in the no-IVUS group (hazard ratio 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.92, p = 0.027 for 23 to 32 mm, n = 1,109; hazard ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.98, p = 0.042 for ≥33 mm, n = 1,137). In conclusion, IVUS usage can attenuate the detrimental effect of the increase in the implanted stent length, supporting IVUS usage, particularly during percutaneous coronary intervention with long stent implantation.