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

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Dong-Ho Shin ; MD ; MPH ; DrPH^a ; Sung-Jin Hong ; MD^b ; Gary S. Mintz ; MD^c ; Jung-Sun Kim ; MD^a ; ^d ; Byeong-Keuk Kim ; MD^a ; ^d ; Young-Guk Ko ; MD^a ; ^d ; Donghoon Choi ; MD^a ; ^d ; Yangsoo Jang ; MD^a ; ^d ; ^e ; Myeong-Ki Hong ; MD^a ; ^d ; ^e ; ^{mkhong61@yuhs.ac" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author}
• 关键词：coronary artery disease ; drug-eluting stent(s) ; intravascular ultrasound
• 刊名：JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：14 November 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：9
• 期：21
• 页码：2232-2239
• 全文大小：1090 K

文摘

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical usefulness of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)–guided new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation using a meta-analysis of individual patient–level data from randomized trials.

Background

Published randomized trials that compare IVUS-guided versus angiography-guided new-generation DES implantation are scarce.

Methods

Searches of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were performed to find randomized trials that compared IVUS-guided versus angiography-guided new-generation DES implantation. A total of 2,345 patients from 3 randomized trials were identified, and all patients were treated for long lesions or chronic total occlusions. Individual patient–level data were obtained. The primary endpoint was a major adverse cardiac event, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis. An intention-to-treat analysis and per protocol analysis were performed.

Results

By 1 year post-procedure, major adverse cardiac events had occurred in 0.4% of the patients who underwent IVUS-guided DES implantation versus 1.2% of those who underwent angiography-guided DES implantation (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13 to 0.99; p = 0.040). For the IVUS-guided group, favorable clinical outcomes were observed for myocardial infarction (0% vs. 0.4%; HR: 0.09; p = 0.026). In addition, the clinical benefit of IVUS guidance was stronger in the per protocol analysis (HR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.89; p = 0.021).

Conclusions

Compared with angiographic guidance, IVUS-guided new-generation DES implantation was associated with favorable outcomes in terms of major adverse cardiac events, the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis. These findings must be interpreted only for complex lesions, because all identified patients had long lesions or chronic total occlusions.