Comparison of intravascular ultrasound guided versus angiography guided drug eluting stent implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) can be a useful tool during drug-eluting stents (DES) implantation as it allows accurate assessment of lesion severity and optimal treatment planning. However, numerous reports have shown that IVUS guided percutaneous coronary intervention is not associated with improved clinical outcomes, especially in non-complex patients and lesions. METHODS: We searched the literature in Medline, the Cochrane Library, and other internet sources to identify studies that compare clinical outcomes between IVUS-guided and angiography-guided DES implantation. Random-effects model was used to assess treatment effect. RESULTS: Twenty eligible studies with a total of 29,068 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The use of IVUS was associated with significant reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, odds ratios [OR] 0.77, 95 % confidence intervals [CI] 0.71-0.83, P < 0.001), death (OR 0.62, 95 % CI 0.54-0.71, p < 0.001), and stent thrombosis (OR 0.59, 95 % CI: 0.47-0.73, P < 0.001). The benefit was also seen in the repeated analysis of matched and randomized studies. In stratified analysis, IVUS guidance appeared to be beneficial not only in patients with complex lesions or acute coronary syndromes (ACS) but also patients with mixed lesions or presentations (MACE: OR 0.69, 95 % CI: 0.60-0.79, p < 0.001, OR 0.81, 95 % CI 0.74-0.90, p < 0.001, respectively). By employing meta-regression analysis, the benefit of IVUS is significantly pronounced in patients with complex lesions or ACS with respect to death (p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: IVUS guidance was associated with improved clinical outcomes, especially in patients with complex lesions admitted with ACS. Large, randomized clinical trials are warranted to identify populations and lesion characteristics where IVUS guidance would be associated with better outcomes

Is intravascular ultrasound beneficial for percutaneous coronary intervention of bifurcation lesions? Evidence from a 4,314-patient registry

Coronary bifurcations remain a challenging lesion subset for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). It is unclear whether intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance can improve PCI results in bifurcations. We aimed to compare IVUS-guided PCI versus standard PCI in a large registry of patients undergoing PCI for bifurcations in the drug-eluting stent era

Does intravascular ultrasound provide clinical benefits for percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal stent implantation? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The role of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) is still controversial despite several previously published meta-analyses. A meta-analysis to evaluate the controversial role of IVUS-guided PCI with bare-metal stenting was performed and a previous published meta-analysis was re-evaluated in order to clarify the discrepancy between results of these studies.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic review was performed by an electronic search of the PubMed, Embase and Web of Knowledge databases and by a manual search of reference lists for randomized controlled trials published until April 2011, with clinical outcomes and, at least, six months of clinical follow-up. A meta-analysis based on the intention to treat was performed with the selected studies.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Five studies and 1,754 patients were included. There were no differences in death (OR = 1.86; 95% CI = 0.88-3.95; p = 0.10), non-fatal myocardial infarction (OR = 0.65; 95% CI = 0.27-1.58; p = 0.35) and major adverse cardiac events (OR = 0.74; 95% CI = 0.49-1.13; p = 0.16). An analysis of the previous published meta-analysis strongly suggested the presence of publication bias.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>There is no evidence to recommend routine IVUS-guided PCI with bare-metal stent implantation. This may be explained by the paucity and heterogeneity of the studies published so far.</p