CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Red Cell Distribution Width in Patients with Diabetes and Myocardial Infarction: an analysis from the EXAMINE trial How Low to Go With Glucose, Cholesterol, and Blood Pressure in Primary Prevention of CVD Frequency of nonsystem delays in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention and implications for door-to-balloon time reporting (from the American Heart Association Mission: Lifeline program) Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes: The Task Force for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Radial Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Interventions Across the Entire Spectrum of Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials The Future of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Advanced Analytics and Clinical Insights The HACD4 haplotype as a risk factor for atherosclerosis in males Improved Outcomes Associated with the use of Shock Protocols: Updates from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative Combining IVUS and Optical Coherence Tomography for More Accurate Coronary Cap Thickness Quantification and Stress/Strain Calculations: A Patient-Specific Three-Dimensional Fluid-Structure Interaction Modeling Approach

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.