{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Long-term clinical outcomes of intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in complex coronary lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
{Author}: Ashraf DA;Ahmed U;Khan ZZ;Mushtaq F;Bano S;Khan AR;Azam S;Haroon A;Malik SA;Aslam R;Kumar J;Khan FZ;Faheem A;Kumar S;Hassan S;
{Journal}: Future Cardiol
{Volume}: 20
{Issue}: 3
{Year}: 2024 Apr 16
暂无{DOI}: 10.2217/fca-2023-0124
{Abstract}: Background: In this study, we aim to discuss the long-term clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound imaging-guided percutaneous intervention (IVUS-PCI) versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in complex coronary lesions over a mean period of 2 years. Methods: A systematic search and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the efficacy of using intravascular ultrasound or optical coherence tomography guidance in coronary artery stenting compared to angiography. Results: A total of 11 randomized controlled trials with 6740 patients were included. For the primary outcome, a pooled analysis (3.2 vs 5.6%). For secondary outcomes, the risk was significantly low in image-guided percutaneous intervention compared with angiography. Conclusion: Intravascular imaging-guided PCI is significantly more effective than angiography-guided PCI in reducing the risk of target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, cardiac death, major adverse cardiovascular events and stent thrombosis.<BR>A meta-analysis was conducted to compare intravascular ultrasound guidance/optical coherence tomography percutaneous coronary intervention with angiography percutaneous coronary intervention with target lesion revascularization as the primary outcome and target vessel revascularization, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, major adverse cardiovascular events, all cause death and cardiac death as the secondary outcomes.