Vol. 41 | No. 2 | July-December 2013 Back

Open Access

Outcomes of Intravascular Ultrasound Guided-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Conventional Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Kathy Lou B. Tomandao
Dec 2013 DOI 10.69944/pjc.fa16614577

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Coronary angiography has been the standard test in evaluating coronary artery disease. However, this procedure has its limitations in estimating disease severity. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) promises to be a more sensitive tool for correct assessment of true lumen dimensions and architecture, as well as atherosclerotic plaque burden and vessel wall abnormalities. The use of IVUS during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may therefore optimize the results of PCI, particularly of stent implantation. In addition, IVUS provides the operator with better information on real vessel size, which facilitates device selection. 

The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent IVUS guided PCI versus conventional PCI after 12 months based on target lesion revascularization, death and all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction and any major adverse coronary event (MACE). 

METHODS: This was a meta-analysis that included published randomized controlled trials that compared the outcomes of patients who underwent IVUS guided-PCI versus conventional PCI. Included trials were searched from electronic databases, such as Pubmed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and HighWire. Results of identified studies that reported the outcomes of on target lesion revascularization, death and all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) and any major adverse cardiac event (MACE) were tabulated and subjected to meta-analysis. 

RESULTS: A total of seven randomized clinical trials were included in this meta-analysis, including a total of 6,370 patients. The primary endpoint of target lesion revascularization at 12 months was significantly lower in patients who underwent IVUS-guided PCI (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.55, 0.79; p<0.001) compared with conventional PCI. Death and all-cause mortality were higher in the conventional PCI group compared with the IVUS-guided PCI group (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.62, 0.98; p=0.037). The incidence of myocardial infarction and any MACE showed no significant difference between the two groups. 

CONCLUSION: This study showed that IVUS-guided PCI resulted in lower target lesion revascularization and mortality rate at 12 months when compared with conventional PCI. Both groups resulted in similar outcome in terms of MI and any MACE at 12 months.

References
  1. Bonow RO, Mann DL, Zipes DP, Libby p. Braunwald’s Heart Disease: A textbook of cardiovascular medicine, 9th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, 2011. 
  2. Spanos V, Stankovic G, Tobis J, Colombo A. The challenge of in stent restenosis: insights from intravascular ultrasound. Eur Heart J. 2003 Jan;24(2):138-50. 
  3. Orford JL, Lerman A, Holmes DR. Routine intravascular ultrasound guidance of percutaneous coronary intervention: a critical reappraisal. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Apr 21;43(8):1335-42. 
  4. Patel Y, Depta JP, Novak E, Yeung M, Lavine K, Banerjee S, Lin CH, Zajarias A, Kurz HI, Lasala JM, Bach RG, Singh J. Long-term outcomes with use of intravascular ultrasound for the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions. Am J Cardiol. 2012 Apr 1;109(7):960-5. 
  5. Mudra H1, di Mario C, de Jaegere P, Figulla HR, Macaya C, Zahn R, Wennerblom B, Rutsch W, Voudris V, Regar E, Henneke KH, Schächinger V, Zeiher A; OPTICUS (OPTimization with ICUS to reduce stent restenosis) Study Investigators. Randomized comparison of coronary stent implantation under ultrasound or angiographic guidance to reduce stent restenosis (OPTICUS Study). Circulation. 2001 Sep 18;104(12):1343-9. 
  6. Gaster AL, Slothuus Skjoldborg U, Larsen J, Korsholm L, von Birgelen C, Jensen S, Thayssen P, Pedersen KE, Haghfelt TH. Continued improvement of clinical outcome and cost effectiveness following intravascular ultrasound guided PCI: insights from a prospective, randomised study. Heart. 2003 Sep;89(9):1043-9. 
  7. Roy P, Steinberg DH, Sushinsky SJ, Okabe T, Pinto Slottow TL, Kaneshige K, Xue Z, Satler LF, Kent KM, Suddath WO, Pichard AD, Weissman NJ, Lindsay J, Waksman R. The potential clinical utility of intravascular ultrasound guidance in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents. Eur Heart J. 2008 Aug;29(15):1851-7. 
  8. Russo RJ, Silva PD, Teirstein PS, Attubato MJ, Davidson CJ, DeFranco AC, Fitzgerald PJ, Goldberg SL, Hermiller JB, Leon MB, Ling FS, Lucisano JE, Schatz RA, Wong SC, Weissman NJ, Zientek DM; AVID Investigators. A randomized controlled trial of angiography versus intravascular ultrasound-directed bare-metal coronary stent placement (the AVID Trial). Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009 Apr;2(2):113-23. 
  9. Wakabayashi K, Lindsay J, Laynez-Carnicero A, Ben-Dor I, Sardi G, Torguson R, Xue Z, Satler LF, Pichard AD, Waksman R. Utility of intravascular ultrasound guidance in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for type C lesions. J Interv Cardiol. 2012 Oct;25(5):452-9. 
  10. Park KW, Kang SH, Yang HM, Lee HY, Kang HJ, Cho YS, Youn TJ, Koo BK, Chae IH, Kim HS. Impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance in routine percutaneous coronary intervention for conventional lesions: data from the EXCELLENT trial. Int J Cardiol. 2013 Aug 10;167(3):721-6.
License

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, which permits use, share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material, as long as you give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. You may not use the material for commercial purposes. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/.