CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Haemodynamic definitions and updated clinical classification of pulmonary hypertension Residual Shunt After Patent Foramen Ovale Closure and Long-Term Stroke Recurrence: A Prospective Cohort Study Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Represents an Anti-Inflammatory Therapy Via Reduction of Shear Stress-Induced, Piezo-1-Mediated Monocyte Activation Role of endothelial dysfunction in determining angina after percutaneous coronary intervention: Learning from pathophysiology to optimize treatment Role of local coronary blood flow patterns and shear stress on the development of microvascular and epicardial endothelial dysfunction and coronary plaque Ticagrelor alone versus ticagrelor plus aspirin from month 1 to month 12 after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ULTIMATE-DAPT): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial Clinical Impact of Residual Leaks Following Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: Insights From the NCDR LAAO Registry De-escalating Dual Antiplatelet Therapy to Ticagrelor Monotherapy in Acute Coronary Syndrome : A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials Half-Dose Direct Oral Anticoagulation Versus Standard Antithrombotic Therapy After Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion A Score to Assess Mortality After Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair

Original Research2018 Jan;11(1):111-123.

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. Article Link

Optical Frequency Domain Imaging Versus Intravascular Ultrasound in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (OPINION Trial) Results From the OPINION Imaging Study

Otake H, Akasaka T, OPINION Investigators et al. Keywords: intravascular ultrasound; optical coherence tomography; optical frequency domain imaging; percutaneous coronary intervention

ABSTRACT


Objectives - The authors sought to clarify how intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography affect percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with current-generation drug-eluting stents in a pre-specified substudy of the OPINION (OPtical frequency domain imaging versus INtravascular ultrasound in percutaneous coronary interventiON) trial, a multicenter, prospective, randomized, noninferiority trial comparing optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI)-guided PCI with IVUS-guided PCI.


Background - The impact of these 2 imaging modalities in guiding PCI remains unknown.


Methods - Of 829 patients enrolled in the OPINION trial, 106 were included in the present imaging substudy. Their PCI was guided by either IVUS or OFDI, but all patients were imaged by both modalities after PCI and by OFDI at 8 months. Angiographic, OFDI, and IVUS images were analyzed by independent core laboratories, and statistical analysis was done independently by a dedicated institution.


Results -  A total of 103 patients underwent either OFDI-guided (n = 54) or IVUS-guided (n = 49) PCI. Immediately after PCI, OFDI-guided PCI was associated with a smaller trend of minimum stent area (5.28 ± 1.65 mm2 vs. 6.12 ± 2.34 mm2; p = 0.088), fewer proximal stent-edge hematomas (p = 0.04), and fewer irregular protrusions (p = 0.014) than IVUS-guided PCI. At 8 months, the neointima area tended to be smaller in the OFDI-guided PCI group than in the IVUS-guided PCI group (0.56 ± 0.30 mm2 vs. 0.80 ± 0.65 mm2; p = 0.057), although the percentage of uncovered struts was significantly higher in the OFDI-guided PCI group than in the IVUS-guided PCI group (6.97 ± 7.03% vs. 4.67 ± 6.43%; p = 0.039). The minimum lumen area was comparable in both groups (p = 0.18).


Conclusions - There were several differences in local findings between OFDI- and IVUS-guided PCI as expected given the different protocols for stent sizing in the 2 groups. The minimum lumen area at the 8-month follow-up was comparable, suggesting that OFDI- and IVUS-guided PCI are similarly feasible using the current-generation drug-eluting stents. (OPtical frequency domain imaging versus INtravascular ultrasound in percutaneous coronary interventiON; NCT01873222)


Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.