Advertisement

Intravascular ultrasound guidance reduces cardiac death and coronary revascularization in patients undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation: results from a meta-analysis of 9 randomized trials and 4724 patients

  • Xiao-Fei Gao
  • Zhi-Mei Wang
  • Feng Wang
  • Yue Gu
  • Zhen Ge
  • Xiang-Quan Kong
  • Guang-Feng Zuo
  • Jun-Jie ZhangEmail author
  • Shao-Liang ChenEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance is not routinely performed in real-word clinical practice partly because the benefit of IVUS guidance is not well established. This updated meta-analysis aims to compare IVUS-guided and angiography-guided drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation, simultaneously stressing the value of an optimal IVUS-defined procedure. Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry were searched for the randomized trials comparing IVUS-guided and angiography-guided DES implantation. Nine eligible randomized trials including 4,724 patients were identified. At a mean follow-up of 16.7 months, IVUS guidance was associated with a significant lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) [5.4% vs. 9.0%; relative risks (RR): 0.61, 95% confident interval (CI) 0.49–0.74, p < 0.001], cardiac death (0.6% vs. 1.2%; RR: 0.49, 95% CI 0.26–0.92, p = 0.03), target vessel revascularization (3.5% vs .6.1%; RR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.42–0.80, p = 0.001), target lesion revascularization (3.1% vs. 5.2%; RR: 0.59, 95% CI 0.44–0.80, p = 0.001), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (0.5% vs .1.1%; RR: 0.45, 95% CI 0.23–0.87, p = 0.02) compared with angiography guidance. No significant differences in all cause death and myocardial infarction were noted between the two groups. Subgroup analysis showed that patients who met the optimal criteria had a lower rate of MACE than those with IVUS-defined suboptimal procedure (RR: 0.33, 95% CI 0.06–0.60, p = 0.02). The present meta-analysis with the largest sample size to date demonstrates that IVUS-guided DES implantation significantly reduces cardiac death, coronary revascularization and stent thrombosis, particularly for patients with IVUS-defined optimal procedures compared with angiography guidance.

Keywords

Intravascular ultrasound Angiography Drug-eluting stents Optimal criteria Meta-analysis 

Notes

Funding

The present study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC 81270191, NSFC 91439118, and NSFC 91639303) and was jointly supported by Six Talent Peaks Project in Jiangsu Province (2014-WSN-058), Nanjing Health and Family Planning Commission (YKK16124), Nanjing Health Youth Talent Training project (QRX17017), and Nanjing Municipal Commission of Science & Technology (201715026).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Supplementary material

10554_2019_1555_MOESM1_ESM.tif (691 kb)
Supplementary material 1 Supplement Figure 1. Study flowchart. (TIF 691 KB)
10554_2019_1555_MOESM2_ESM.tif (365 kb)
Supplementary material 2 Supplement Figure 2. Funnel plot of publication bias for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (A), cardiac death (B), all cause death (C), myocardial infarction (D), target vessel revascularization (TVR) (E), target lesion revascularization (TLR) (F), and stent thrombosis (G). (TIF 365 KB)
10554_2019_1555_MOESM3_ESM.tif (1.6 mb)
Supplementary material 3 Supplement Figure 3. Sensitivity analysis of MACE by omitting a single study from the overall analysis one at a time. (TIF 1671 KB)
10554_2019_1555_MOESM4_ESM.docx (154 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 154 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Parise H, Maehara A, Stone GW, Leon MB, Mintz GS (2011) Meta-analysis of randomized studies comparing intravascular ultrasound versus angiographic guidance of percutaneous coronary intervention in pre-drug-eluting stent era. Am J Cardiol 107(3):374–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stone GW, Ellis SG, Cox DA, Hermiller J, O’Shaughnessy C, Mann JT, Turco M, Caputo R, Bergin P, Greenberg J, Popma JJ, Russell ME, Investigators T-I (2004) A polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 350(3):221–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elgendy IY, Mahmoud AN, Elgendy AY, Bavry AA (2016) Outcomes with intravascular ultrasound-guided stent implantation: a meta-analysis of randomized trials in the era of drug-eluting stents. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 9(4):e003700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Park SJ, Kim YH, Park DW, Lee SW, Kim WJ, Suh J, Yun SC, Lee CW, Hong MK, Lee JH, Park SW, Investigators M-C (2009) Impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance on long-term mortality in stenting for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2(3):167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Witzenbichler B, Maehara A, Weisz G, Neumann FJ, Rinaldi MJ, Metzger DC, Henry TD, Cox DA, Duffy PL, Brodie BR, Stuckey TD, Mazzaferri EL Jr, Xu K, Parise H, Mehran R, Mintz GS, Stone GW (2014) Relationship between intravascular ultrasound guidance and clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stents: the assessment of dual antiplatelet therapy with drug-eluting stents (ADAPT-DES) study. Circulation 129(4):463–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen SL, Ye F, Zhang JJ, Tian NL, Liu ZZ, Santoso T, Zhou YJ, Jiang TM, Wen SY, Kwan TW (2013) Intravascular ultrasound-guided systematic two-stent techniques for coronary bifurcation lesions and reduced late stent thrombosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 81(3):456–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gao XF, Kan J, Zhang YJ, Zhang JJ, Tian NL, Ye F, Ge Z, Xiao PX, Chen F, Mintz G, Chen SL (2014) Comparison of one-year clinical outcomes between intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided implantation of drug-eluting stents for left main lesions: a single-center analysis of a 1,016-patient cohort. Patient Preference Adherence 8:1299–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen L, Xu T, Xue XJ, Zhang JJ, Ye F, Tian NL, Chen SL (2018) Intravascular ultrasound-guided drug-eluting stent implantation is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with unstable angina and complex coronary artery true bifurcation lesions. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 34(11):1685–1696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chieffo A, Latib A, Caussin C, Presbitero P, Galli S, Menozzi A, Varbella F, Mauri F, Valgimigli M, Arampatzis C, Sabate M, Erglis A, Reimers B, Airoldi F, Laine M, Palop RL, Mikhail G, Maccarthy P, Romeo F, Colombo A (2013) A prospective, randomized trial of intravascular-ultrasound guided compared to angiography guided stent implantation in complex coronary lesions: the AVIO trial. Am Heart J 165(1):65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hong SJ, Kim BK, Shin DH, Nam CM, Kim JS, Ko YG, Choi D, Kang TS, Kang WC, Her AY, Kim YH, Hur SH, Hong BK, Kwon H, Jang Y, Hong MK, Investigators I-X (2015) Effect of intravascular ultrasound-guided vs angiography-guided everolimus-eluting stent implantation: the IVUS-XPL randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314(20):2155–2163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim BK, Shin DH, Hong MK, Park HS, Rha SW, Mintz GS, Kim JS, Kim JS, Lee SJ, Kim HY, Hong BK, Kang WC, Choi JH, Jang Y, Investigators C-IS (2015) Clinical impact of intravascular ultrasound-guided chronic total occlusion intervention with zotarolimus-eluting versus biolimus-eluting stent implantation: randomized study. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 8(7):e002592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim JS, Kang TS, Mintz GS, Park BE, Shin DH, Kim BK, Ko YG, Choi D, Jang Y, Hong MK (2013) Randomized comparison of clinical outcomes between intravascular ultrasound and angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation for long coronary artery stenoses. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 6(4):369–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tan Q, Wang Q, Liu D, Zhang S, Zhang Y, Li Y (2015) Intravascular ultrasound-guided unprotected left main coronary artery stenting in the elderly. Saudi Med J 36(5):549–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tian NL, Gami SK, Ye F, Zhang JJ, Liu ZZ, Lin S, Ge Z, Shan SJ, You W, Chen L, Zhang YJ, Mintz G, Chen SL (2015) Angiographic and clinical comparisons of intravascular ultrasound- versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation for patients with chronic total occlusion lesions: two-year results from a randomised AIR-CTO study. EuroIntervention 10(12):1409–1417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bavishi C, Sardar P, Chatterjee S, Khan AR, Shah A, Ather S, Lemos PA, Moreno P, Stone GW (2017) Intravascular ultrasound-guided vs angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation in complex coronary lesions: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am Heart J 185:26–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shin DH, Hong SJ, Mintz GS, Kim JS, Kim BK, Ko YG, Choi D, Jang Y, Hong MK (2016) 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. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 9(21):2232–2239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Steinvil A, Zhang YJ, Lee SY, Pang S, Waksman R, Chen SL, Garcia-Garcia HM (2016) Intravascular ultrasound-guided drug-eluting stent implantation: an updated meta-analysis of randomized control trials and observational studies. Int J Cardiol 216:133–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhang J, Gao X, Kan J, Ge Z, Han L, Lu S, Tian N, Lin S, Lu Q, Wu X, Li Q, Liu Z, Chen Y, Qian X, Juan W, Chai D, Chen C, Li X, Gogas BD, Pan T, Shan S, Ye F, Chen SL (2018) Intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided implantation of drug-eluting stent in all-comers: the ULTIMATE trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 72:3126–3137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buccheri S, Franchina G, Romano S, Puglisi S, Venuti G, D’Arrigo P, Francaviglia B, Scalia M, Condorelli A, Barbanti M, Capranzano P, Tamburino C, Capodanno D (2017) Clinical outcomes following intravascular imaging-guided versus coronary angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation: a systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis of 31 studies and 17,882 patients. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 10(24):2488–2498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fan ZG, Gao XF, Li XB, Shao MX, Gao YL, Chen SL, Tian NL (2017) The outcomes of intravascular ultrasound-guided drug-eluting stent implantation among patients with complex coronary lesions: a comprehensive meta-analysis of 15 clinical trials and 8,084 patients. Anatol J Cardiol 17(4):258–268Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mauri L, Hsieh WH, Massaro JM, Ho KK, D’Agostino R, Cutlip DE (2007) Stent thrombosis in randomized clinical trials of drug-eluting stents. N Engl J Med 356(10):1020–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 151(4):W65–W94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315(7109):629–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jakabcin J, Spacek R, Bystron M, Kvasnak M, Jager J, Veselka J, Kala P, Cervinka P (2010) Long-term health outcome and mortality evaluation after invasive coronary treatment using drug eluting stents with or without the IVUS guidance. Randomized control trial. HOME DES IVUS. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 75(4):578–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jian-Qi Zhang RS, Wei Pang Q, Guo Y, Xu J, Zhang Q, Yang Y, Li J-P, Mei T-M, Jiang Y-M, Li (2016) Application of intravascular ultrasound in stent implantation for small coronary arteries. J Clin Invasive Cardiol 3:1–8Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dattilo PB, Prasad A, Honeycutt E, Wang TY, Messenger JC (2012) Contemporary patterns of fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound use among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 60(22):2337–2339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Frohlich GM, Redwood S, Rakhit R, MacCarthy PA, Lim P, Crake T, White SK, Knight CJ, Kustosz C, Knapp G, Dalby MC, Mali IS, Archbold A, Wragg A, Timmis AD, Meier P (2014) Long-term survival in patients undergoing percutaneous interventions with or without intracoronary pressure wire guidance or intracoronary ultrasonographic imaging: a large cohort study. JAMA Intern Med 174(8):1360–1366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Park KW, Kang SH, Yang HM, Lee HY, Kang HJ, Cho YS, Youn TJ, Koo BK, Chae IH, Kim HS (2013) Impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance in routine percutaneous coronary intervention for conventional lesions: data from the EXCELLENT trial. Int J Cardiol 167(3):721–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiao-Fei Gao
    • 1
    • 2
  • Zhi-Mei Wang
    • 1
  • Feng Wang
    • 1
  • Yue Gu
    • 1
  • Zhen Ge
    • 1
  • Xiang-Quan Kong
    • 1
  • Guang-Feng Zuo
    • 1
  • Jun-Jie Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Shao-Liang Chen
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Cardiology, Nanjing First HospitalNanjing Medical UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Department of CardiologyNanjing Heart CentreNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations