Intravascular imaging

血管内成像
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    心脏移植是治疗终末期心力衰竭的标准方法。包括增强免疫抑制和积极的感染预防在内的治疗进展导致移植后的预期寿命增加;然而,心脏移植血管病变(CAV)仍然是导致发病和死亡的主要原因.尽管冠状动脉造影是目前指南推荐的侵入性CAV筛查的诊断方式,其检测早期和/或弥漫性疾病的能力有限。改善患有CAV的心脏移植受者的结果的努力集中在开发对捕获早期CAV具有更大敏感性的诊断工具,以便更好地了解病理生物学并实施治疗以在移植后更快地减缓疾病进展。用于CAV监测的当代侵入性成像设备包括冠状动脉造影,血管内超声,和较新的技术,包括光学相干层析成像和近红外光谱。本综述概述了CAV领域中支持这些成像平台的使用和数据,并强调了每种模式的潜在优势和局限性。
    Heart transplantation is the standard of care treatment for end-stage heart failure. Therapeutic advances including enhanced immunosuppression and aggressive infectious prophylaxis have led to increased life-expectancy following transplantation; however, cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Although coronary angiography is the current guideline-recommended diagnostic modality for invasive CAV screening, it is limited in its ability to detect early and/or diffuse disease. Efforts to improve outcomes for heart transplant recipients with CAV have focused on developing diagnostic tools with greater sensitivity to capture early CAV in order to better understand the pathobiology and implement treatment to slow disease progression sooner after transplant. The contemporary invasive imaging armamentarium for CAV surveillance includes coronary angiography, intravascular ultrasound, and newer technologies including optical coherence tomography and near-infrared spectroscopy. The present review outlines the use of and data in support of these imaging platforms in the CAV arena and highlights the potential advantages and limitations of each of these modalities.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    尽管多项随机临床试验(RCT)表明,与血管造影引导的PCI相比,血管内成像(IVI)引导的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)可改善临床预后,但由于个别试验中的患者数量少,其在钙化冠状动脉病变中的具体益处尚不清楚。我们对RCTs进行了荟萃分析,以研究IVI引导的PCI与血管造影引导的PCI相比在严重钙化的冠状动脉病变中的益处。主要终点是主要不良心脏事件(MACE),心脏死亡的复合物,靶血管或靶病变心肌梗死,和靶血管或靶病变血运重建。集合比值比(OR)和95%置信区间(CI)通过使用基于限制性最大似然法的随机效应荟萃分析来计算。搜索PubMed,EMBASE,从成立到2024年1月,CochraneLibrary确定了4项试验,将1319例血管造影中度或重度或重度冠状动脉钙化患者随机分为IVI指导(n=702)和血管造影引导的PCI(n=617)。在加权中位随访时间为27.3个月时,与血管造影引导的PCI相比,IVI引导的PCI导致MACE的几率显着降低(OR0.57,95%CI0.40-0.80)。研究中没有异质性的证据(I2=0.0%),纳入试验的偏倚风险较低.与血管造影引导的PCI相比,IVI引导的PCI与血管造影高度钙化的冠状动脉病变的MACE明显降低相关。
    Although multiple randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have shown that intravascular imaging (IVI)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with angiography-guided PCI, its benefits specifically in calcified coronary lesions is unclear due to the small number of patients included in individual trials. We performed a meta-analysis of RCTs to investigate benefits of IVI-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI in heavily calcified coronary lesions. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel or target-lesion myocardial infarction, and target-vessel or target lesion revascularization. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated by using a random-effects meta-analysis based on the restricted maximum likelihood method. A search PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from their inception to January 2024 identified 4 trials that randomized 1319 patients with angiographically moderate or severe or severe coronary calcification to IVI-guided (n = 702) vs. angiography-guided PCI (n = 617). IVI-guided PCI resulted in a significantly lower odds of MACE (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40-0.80) compared with angiography-guided PCI at a weighted median follow-up duration of 27.3 months. There was no evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 0.0%), and included trials were judged to be low risk of bias. Compared with angiography-guided PCI, IVI-guided PCI was associated with a significantly lower MACE in angiographically heavily calcified coronary lesions.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Comparative Study
    缺乏有关在导管插入实验室中确定冠状动脉狭窄重要性的不同方式的比较功效的证据。我们旨在比较所有可用的方式来指导进行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的决定。我们搜查了Medline,Embase,和中央至2023年10月5日。我们纳入了随机接受潜在PCI的大于30%狭窄患者并报告了主要不良心血管事件(MACE)的试验。我们进行了频繁随机效应网络荟萃分析,并使用GRADE方法评估了证据的确定性。我们纳入了15项试验,16,333名参与者,平均加权随访34个月。试验的中位数为49.3%(IQR32.6%,100%)急性冠脉综合征(ACS)参与者。与冠状动脉造影(CA)相比,定量流量比(QFR)与MACE风险降低相关(风险比(RR)0.68,95%置信区间(CI)0.56,0.82;高确定性),血流储备分数(FFR)(RR0.73,95CI0.58,0.92;中等确定性),和瞬时无波比(iFR)(RR0.63,95CI0.49,0.82;中等确定性),MACE排名第一(88.1%的概率是最好的)。与CA相比,FFR(RR0.93;95CI0.82,1.06;中度确定性)和iFR(RR1.07,95CI0.90,1.28;中度确定性)可能不会降低MACE的风险。与CA(RR0.85;95CI0.62,1.17;低确定性)相比,血管内成像(IVI)可能与MACE的显著降低无关。总之,与CA相比,基于QFR决定进行PCI与MACE风险降低相关,稳定型冠状动脉疾病和ACS混合人群中的FFR和iFR。这些产生假设的发现应该在很大程度上得到验证,随机化,正面交锋的试验.
    Evidence regarding the comparative efficacy of the different methods to determine the significance of coronary stenoses in the catheterization laboratory is lacking. We aimed to compare all available methods guiding the decision to perform percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We searched Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL until October 5, 2023. We included trials that randomized patients with greater than 30% stenoses who were considered for PCI and reported major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We included 15 trials with 16,333 participants with a mean weighted follow-up of 34 months. The trials contained a median of 49.3% (interquartile range: 32.6%, 100%) acute coronary syndrome participants. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) was associated with a decreased risk of MACE compared with coronary angiography (CA) (risk ratio [RR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56 to 0.82, high certainty), fractional flow reserve (FFR) (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.92, moderate certainty), and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.82, moderate certainty), and ranked first for MACE (88.1% probability of being the best). FFR (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.06, moderate certainty) and iFR (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.28, moderate certainty) likely did not decrease the risk of MACE compared with CA. Intravascular imaging may not be associated with a significant decrease in MACE compared with CA (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.17, low certainty) when used to guide the decision to perform PCI. In conclusion, a decision to perform PCI based on QFR was associated with a decreased risk of MACE compared with CA, FFR, and iFR in a mixed stable coronary disease and acute coronary syndrome population. These hypothesis-generating findings should be validated in large, randomized, head-to-head trials.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:在这项研究中,我们旨在讨论血管内超声成像引导下经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(IVUS-PCI)与血管造影引导下经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)在复杂冠状动脉病变中平均2年的长期临床结局.方法:进行了系统搜索和荟萃分析,以评估与血管造影相比,在冠状动脉支架置入中使用血管内超声或光学相干断层扫描指导的有效性。结果:共纳入11项随机对照试验,6740例患者。对于主要结果,汇总分析(3.2vs5.6%)。对于次要结果,与血管造影相比,影像引导经皮介入治疗的风险显著较低.结论:血管内成像引导的PCI在降低靶病变血运重建风险方面明显优于血管造影引导的PCI,靶血管血运重建,心脏死亡,主要不良心血管事件和支架内血栓形成。
    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.
    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.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    多项随机临床试验的结果比较了血管内超声(IVUS)和光学相干断层扫描(OCT)引导的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)和侵入性冠状动脉造影(ICA)引导的PCI以及比较两种血管内成像(IVI)技术的关键试验的结果,结果喜忧参半。
    搜索了主要的电子数据库,以确定评估ICA中至少2种PCI指导策略的合格试验,IVUS,和OCT。2个共同主要结果是靶病变血运重建和心肌梗死。次要结局包括缺血驱动的靶病变血运重建,靶血管心肌梗死,死亡,心脏死亡,靶血管血运重建,支架内血栓形成,和主要不良心脏事件。进行了频繁随机效应网络荟萃分析。结果由贝叶斯随机效应模型复制。直接成分的成对荟萃分析,多重敏感性分析,并补充了IVI与ICA的成对荟萃分析。
    来自24项随机试验的结果(15489例患者:IVUS与ICA,46.4%,7189名患者;OCT与ICA,32.1%,4976例患者;OCT与IVUS,21.4%,3324例患者)被纳入网络荟萃分析。与ICA相比,IVUS与靶病变血运重建减少相关(比值比[OR],0.69[95%CI,0.54-0.87]),而OCT和ICA之间没有观察到显著差异(OR,0.83[95%CI,0.63-1.09])和OCT和IVUS(OR,1.21[95%CI,0.92-1.58])。指导策略之间的心肌梗塞没有显着差异(IVUS与ICA:OR,0.91[95%CI,0.70-1.19];OCT与ICA:或,0.87[95%CI,0.68-1.11];OCT与IVUS:或,0.96[95%CI,0.69-1.33])。这些结果与缺血驱动的靶病变血运重建的次要结果一致。靶血管心肌梗死,和目标血管血运重建,敏感性分析通常没有发现不一致。与ICA相比,OCT与支架内血栓形成显著减少相关(OR,0.49[95%CI,0.26-0.92]),但仅在频率分析中。同样,在所有分析中,IVUS或OCT与ICA之间的生存率结果不确定.共有25项随机试验(17128例患者)纳入IVI与ICA的成对荟萃分析,其中IVI指导与减少靶病变血运重建相关。心脏死亡,和支架血栓形成。
    与ICA引导的PCI相比,IVI引导的PCI与缺血驱动的靶病变血运重建减少相关,差异在IVUS中最为明显。相比之下,两种指导策略在心肌梗死方面无显著差异.
    Results from multiple randomized clinical trials comparing outcomes after intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)- and optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with invasive coronary angiography (ICA)-guided PCI as well as a pivotal trial comparing the 2 intravascular imaging (IVI) techniques have provided mixed results.
    Major electronic databases were searched to identify eligible trials evaluating at least 2 PCI guidance strategies among ICA, IVUS, and OCT. The 2 coprimary outcomes were target lesion revascularization and myocardial infarction. The secondary outcomes included ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, target vessel myocardial infarction, death, cardiac death, target vessel revascularization, stent thrombosis, and major adverse cardiac events. Frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted. The results were replicated by Bayesian random-effects models. Pairwise meta-analyses of the direct components, multiple sensitivity analyses, and pairwise meta-analyses IVI versus ICA were supplemented.
    The results from 24 randomized trials (15 489 patients: IVUS versus ICA, 46.4%, 7189 patients; OCT versus ICA, 32.1%, 4976 patients; OCT versus IVUS, 21.4%, 3324 patients) were included in the network meta-analyses. IVUS was associated with reduced target lesion revascularization compared with ICA (odds ratio [OR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.54-0.87]), whereas no significant differences were observed between OCT and ICA (OR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.63-1.09]) and OCT and IVUS (OR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.88-1.66]). Myocardial infarction did not significantly differ between guidance strategies (IVUS versus ICA: OR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.70-1.19]; OCT versus ICA: OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.68-1.11]; OCT versus IVUS: OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.69-1.33]). These results were consistent with the secondary outcomes of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, and sensitivity analyses generally did not reveal inconsistency. OCT was associated with a significant reduction of stent thrombosis compared with ICA (OR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.26-0.92]) but only in the frequentist analysis. Similarly, the results in terms of survival between IVUS or OCT and ICA were uncertain across analyses. A total of 25 randomized trials (17 128 patients) were included in the pairwise meta-analyses IVI versus ICA where IVI guidance was associated with reduced target lesion revascularization, cardiac death, and stent thrombosis.
    IVI-guided PCI was associated with a reduction in ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization compared with ICA-guided PCI, with the difference most evident for IVUS. In contrast, no significant differences in myocardial infarction were observed between guidance strategies.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    本文的主要目的是描述和阐明当代的进步,事态发展,以及有关脊柱内再狭窄(ISR)的主要轨迹。我们的目标是全面概述这一领域的最新发展,涵盖各个方面,如病理生理学见解,治疗方法,以及应对现代临床环境中ISR复杂挑战的新策略。作者进行了一项研究,以解决一个相对较新的医学挑战,认识到它对心血管疾病患者的发病率和死亡率的重大影响。这种努力是由需要充分理解,分析,并可能改善心血管疾病领域这一新兴医学问题的结果。我们承认其相当大的临床意义,以及创新方法减轻其对患者预后影响的必要性。因此,我们的重点是阐明疾病流行的主要方面,阐述了突出再狭窄的基本机制,并描绘与塑造诊断和治疗模式的当代景观相关的风险因素。这项彻底的检查旨在全面了解病情的各个方面,包括流行病学数据,病理生理复杂性,以及对评估和增强当前诊断和治疗方法至关重要的临床考虑。
    The primary objective of this paper is to delineate and elucidate the contemporary advancements, developments, and prevailing trajectories concerning intrastent restenosis (ISR). We aim to provide a thorough overview of the most recent developments in this area, covering various aspects such as pathophysiological insights, therapeutic approaches, and new strategies for tackling the complex challenges of ISR in modern clinical settings. The authors have undertaken a study to address a relatively new medical challenge, recognizing its significant impact on the morbidity and mortality of individuals with cardiovascular diseases. This effort is driven by the need to fully understand, analyze, and possibly improve the outcomes of this emerging medical issue within the cardiovascular disease field. We acknowledge its considerable clinical implications and the necessity for innovative methods to mitigate its effects on patient outcomes. Therefore, our emphasis was directed towards elucidating the principal facets of the condition\'s prevalence, expounding upon the foundational mechanisms underscoring conspicuous restenosis, and delineating the risk factors relevant in shaping the contemporary landscape of diagnostic and therapeutic modalities. This thorough examination aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the various dimensions of the condition, including epidemiological data, pathophysiological complexities, and clinical considerations critical for evaluating and enhancing current diagnostic and treatment approaches.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    冠状动脉造影中的慢性完全闭塞(CTO)是当今的重大挑战。血管内超声(IVUS)是CTO-PCI期间的宝贵工具,有助于计划和实现手术成功。然而,IVUS对CTO-PCI临床和手术结局的影响尚不确定.这项荟萃分析旨在比较IVUS引导和血管造影引导的CTO-PCI方法。该研究包括5项研究和2320例稳定性冠状动脉疾病(CAD)和CTO患者。两组间主要不良心脏事件(MACE)的主要结局无显著差异(p=0.40)。支架血栓形成是唯一表现出显著差异的次要临床结局,支持IVUS引导方法(p=0.01)。手术结果显示,IVUS引导的手术有更长的支架,更大的直径,以及更长的手术时间和透视时间(分别为p=0.007,p<0.001,p=0.03,p=0.002)。两种方法之间的支架数量和对比体积没有显着差异(分别为p=0.88和p=0.33)。总之,常规使用IVUS并没有显著改善临床结局,除了减少支架血栓形成。CTO-PCI的决策应根据患者特征进行个性化,并采用多参数方法进行支持。
    Chronic total occlusions (CTO) in coronary angiographies present a significant challenge nowadays. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) is a valuable tool during CTO-PCI, aiding in planning and achieving procedural success. However, the impact of IVUS on clinical and procedural outcomes in CTO-PCI remains uncertain. This meta-analysis aimed to compare IVUS-guided and angiography-guided approaches in CTO-PCI. The study included five studies and 2320 patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and CTO. The primary outcome of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) did not significantly differ between the groups (p = 0.40). Stent thrombosis was the only secondary clinical outcome that showed a significant difference, favoring the IVUS-guided approach (p = 0.01). Procedural outcomes revealed that IVUS-guided procedures had longer stents, larger diameters, and longer procedure and fluoroscopy times (p = 0.007, p < 0.001, p = 0.03, p = 0.002, respectively). Stent number and contrast volume did not significantly differ between the approaches (p = 0.88 and p = 0.33, respectively). In summary, routine IVUS use did not significantly improve clinical outcomes, except for reducing stent thrombosis. Decisions in CTO-PCI should be individualized based on patient characteristics and supported by a multi-parametric approach.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    冠状动脉造影历来是诊断冠状动脉疾病和指导经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的金标准。当代血管内成像(IVI)技术的辅助使用已成为常规血管造影的补充,可进一步表征斑块形态并优化PCI的性能。IVI可用于介入前病变和血管评估,病变准备和支架展开的围手术期指导,以及最佳终点的干预后评估和并发症的排除。IVI在减少复杂病变亚群主要不良心脏事件中的作用正在显现,评估更广泛用途的进一步研究正在进行或正在开发中。本文概述了当前可用的IVI技术,审查支持其利用的数据,以指导和优化各种病变子集的PCI,提出了最佳实践,并主张更广泛地使用这些技术作为当代实践的一部分。
    Coronary angiography has historically served as the gold standard for diagnosis of coronary artery disease and guidance of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Adjunctive use of contemporary intravascular imaging (IVI) technologies has emerged as a complement to conventional angiography-to further characterize plaque morphology and optimize the performance of PCI. IVI has utility for preintervention lesion and vessel assessment, periprocedural guidance of lesion preparation and stent deployment, and postintervention assessment of optimal endpoints and exclusion of complications. The role of IVI in reducing major adverse cardiac events in complex lesion subsets is emerging, and further studies evaluating broader use are underway or in development. This paper provides an overview of currently available IVI technologies, reviews data supporting their utilization for PCI guidance and optimization across a variety of lesion subsets, proposes best practices, and advocates for broader use of these technologies as a part of contemporary practice.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    传统的血管造影仅显示支架植入过程中冠状动脉的二维图像。然而,血管内成像可以显示血管壁的结构,斑块特征。本文旨在评估血管内成像引导药物洗脱支架(DES)植入的疗效。
    我们对血管内成像引导的随机对照试验进行了系统评价和荟萃分析,包括血管内超声或光学相干断层扫描和传统血管造影引导下的DES植入患者。PubMed的数据库,EMBASE,科学网,搜索了Cochrane图书馆.主要结果是靶病变血运重建(TLR)。次要结果包括目标血管血运重建(TVR),心肌梗死(MI),支架内血栓形成(ST),心脏死亡,全因死亡,以及6-24个月随访期间的主要不良心脏事件(MACE)。固定效应模型用于计算结果事件的相对风险(RR)和95%置信区间。同时,试验序列分析用于评估结果.
    这项荟萃分析包括14项随机对照试验,共7307例患者。与血管造影引导相比,血管内成像引导的DES植入可显著降低TLR的风险(RR0.63,0.49-0.82,P=0.0004),TVR(RR0.66,0.52-0.85,P=0.001),心脏死亡(RR0.58;0.38-0.89;P=0.01),MACE(RR0.67,0.57-0.79;P<0.00001)和ST(RR0.43,0.24-0.78;P=0.005)。而MI(RR0.77,0.57-1.05,P=0.10)和全因死亡(RR0.87,0.58-1.30,P=0.50)没有显着差异。
    与血管造影相比,血管内成像引导的DES植入与冠心病患者更好的临床预后相关,尤其是复杂的病变(由PROSPERO注册,CRD42021289205)。
    BACKGROUND: Traditional angiography only displays two-dimensional images of the coronary arteries during stent implantation. However, intravascular imaging can show the structure of the vascular wall, plaque characteristics. This article aims to evaluate the efficacy of intravascular imaging-guided drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation.
    METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of intravascular imaging-guided, including patients with DES implantation guided by intravascular ultrasound or optical coherence tomography and traditional angiography. The databases of PubMed, EMBASE, web of science, and Cochrane Library were searched. The primary outcome was target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary outcomes included the target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), cardiac death, all-cause death, and the major adverse cardiac events (MACE) during the 6-24 months follow-up. The fixed-effects model was used to calculate the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval of the outcome event. Meanwhile, the trial sequence analysis was employed to evaluate the results.
    RESULTS: This meta-analysis included fourteen randomized controlled trials with 7307 patients. Compared with angiography-guided, intravascular imaging-guided DES implantation can significantly reduce the risk of TLR (RR 0.63, 0.49-0.82, P = 0.0004), TVR (RR 0.66, 0.52-0.85, P = 0.001), cardiac death (RR 0.58; 0.38-0.89; P = 0.01), MACE (RR 0.67, 0.57-0.79; P < 0.00001) and ST (RR 0.43, 0.24-0.78; P = 0.005). While there was no significant difference regarding MI (RR 0.77, 0.57-1.05, P = 0.10) and all-cause death (RR 0.87, 0.58-1.30, P = 0.50).
    CONCLUSIONS: Compared with angiography, intravascular imaging-guided DES implantation is associated with better clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease, especially complex lesions (Registered by PROSPERO, CRD 42021289205).
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    血管内超声(IVUS)指导下的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)与更好的长期结局相关,但收养仍然有限。关于IVUS对慢性完全闭塞(CTO)-PCI的影响的数据有限。
    研究IVUS指导对CTO-PCI结局的影响。
    我们对IVUS与血管造影引导的CTO-PCI进行了系统评价和研究水平的荟萃分析。从开始到2021年1月,对所有相关研究的电子数据库进行了系统搜索。随机对照试验(RCT),注册表数据,包括在同行评审的索引期刊上发表的摘要。我们检查了以下院内和长期结局:主要不良心脏事件;全因死亡率;心血管死亡率;心肌梗死(MI);靶血管血运重建(TVR);靶病变血运重建(TLR);和支架血栓形成(ST)。我们还评估了以下程序指标:手术时间;透视时间;对比体积;支架总长度;支架总数。随机效应模型用于汇集个体研究结果。
    四个(2个观测,2项随机)研究包括1975名患者(IVUS引导的PCI,861名患者;血管造影引导的PCI,1114名患者)。IVUS引导的CTO-PCI具有相似的全因死亡率,主要不良心脏事件,心血管死亡率,MI,TVR,和TLR与血管造影引导的CTO-PCI相比,但支架血栓形成的风险较低(比值比,0.24;95%置信区间,0.08-0.76;P=.02;I²=0%),较短的手术时间(P<.001;I²=88%),透视时间较短(P<.001;I²=63%),和较少的对比体积使用(P<.001;I²=59%)。IVUS引导CTO-PCI的总支架长度(P<.001;I²=39%)和支架总数(P<.001;I²=72%)较低。
    IVUS引导的CTO-PCI与ST的风险较低相关。
    Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance have been associated with better long-term outcomes, but adoption remains limited. There are limited data on the impact of IVUS on chronic total occlusion (CTO)-PCI.
    To examine the impact of IVUS guidance on the outcomes of CTO-PCI.
    We performed a systematic review and study-level meta-analysis of IVUS vs angiography-guided CTO-PCI. Electronic databases were systematically searched for all pertinent studies from inception through January 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCT), registry data, and abstracts published in peer-reviewed indexed journals were included. We examined the following in-hospital and long-term outcomes: major adverse cardiac events; all-cause mortality; cardiovascular mortality; myocardial infarction (MI); target-vessel revascularization (TVR); target-lesion revascularization (TLR); and stent thrombosis (ST). We also evaluated the following procedural metrics: procedure time; fluoroscopy time; contrast volume; total stent length; and total number of stents. Random-effects models were used to pool individual study results.
    Four (2 observational, 2 randomized) studies including 1975 patients (IVUS-guided PCI, 861 patients; angiography-guided PCI, 1114 patients) were included in the analysis. IVUS-guided CTO-PCI had similar all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac events, cardiovascular mortality, MI, TVR, and TLR compared with angiography-guided CTO-PCI, but lower risk of stent thrombosis (odds ratio, 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.76; P=.02; I²=0%), shorter procedure time (P<.001; I²=88%), shorter fluoroscopy time (P<.001; I²=63%), and less contrast volume use (P<.001; I²=59%). Total stent length (P<.001; I²=39%) and total number of stents (P<.001; I²=72%) were lower with IVUS-guided CTO-PCI.
    IVUS-guided CTO-PCI is associated with lower risk of ST.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

公众号