CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

2019 ACC/AHA/ASE Advanced Training Statement on Echocardiography (Revision of the 2003 ACC/AHA Clinical Competence Statement on Echocardiography): A Report of the ACC Competency Management Committee Regional Heterogeneity in the Coronary Vascular Response in Women With Chest Pain and Nonobstructive Coronary Artery Disease Safety and efficacy of a self-expanding versus a balloon-expandable bioprosthesis for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a randomised non-inferiority trial Effect of Evolocumab on Complex Coronary Disease Requiring Revascularization Heart Failure With Improved Ejection Fraction-Is it Possible to Escape One’s Past? 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 Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-risk Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Duration: Reconciling the Inconsistencies Aspirin with or without Clopidogrel after Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Implantation A trial to evaluate the effect of the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin on morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (DAPA-HF)

Review Article2012 Nov 22;8(7):855-65.

JOURNAL:EuroIntervention. Article Link

Comparison of intravascular ultrasound versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation: a meta-analysis of one randomised trial and ten observational studies involving 19,619 patients

Zhang JY, Farooq V, Chen SL et al. Keywords: intravascular ultrasound; drug-eluting stent; angiography; major adverse cardiac events; stent thrombosis

ABSTRACT


AIMS - The impact of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guided coronary drug-eluting stent(DES) implantation on clinical outcomes remains controversial. A meta-analysis of the currently available clinical trials investigating IVUS-guided DES implantation was undertaken.


METHODS AND RESULTS - We searched Medline, the Cochrane Library and other internet sources, without language or date restrictions, for published articles comparing clinical outcomes between IVUS-guided and angiography-guided DES implantation. Clinical studies with both adjusted and unadjusted data were included. Eleven studies were identified (one randomised controlled trial and 10 registries) and included in the meta-analysis with a weighted follow-up time of 20.7 ± 11.5 months. Compared with angiography guidance, IVUS-guided DES implantation was associated with a reduced incidence of death (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48-0.73, p<0.001), major adverse cardiac events (HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.78-0.96, p=0.008) and stent thrombosis (HR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.44-0.77, p<0.001). The incidence of myocardial infarction (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.63-1.06, p=0.126), target lesion (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.73-1.11, p=0.316) and target vessel (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.77-1.05, p=0.195) revascularisation was comparable between the angiography and IVUS-guided arms. A repeat meta-analysis of propensity-matched studies only (six studies, n=5,300) yielded broadly similar results in terms of clinical outcomes.


CONCLUSIONS - IVUS-guided coronary DES implantationis associated with a significant reduction in death, MACE and stent thrombosis compared to angiography guidance. Appropriately powered randomised trials are necessary to confirm the findings from this meta-analysis.