Randomized comparison of clinical outcomes between intravascular ultrasound and angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation for long coronary artery stenoses

Jung Sun Kim, Tae Soo Kang, Gary S. Mintz, Byoung Eun Park, Dong Ho Shin, Byeong Keuk Kim, Young Guk Ko, Donghoon Choi, Yangsoo Jang, Myeong Ki Hong

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

74 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: This study sought to assess the impact of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance on clinical outcomes following drug-eluting stent implantation when treating long lesions. Background: The role of IVUS guidance when treating long lesions has been tested during bare-metal stent, but not during drug-eluting stent, implantation. Methods: A total of 543 patients treated with stents ≥28 mm in length were randomly assigned to IVUS guidance (n = 269) versus angiography guidance (n = 274). The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, or stent thrombosis at 1 year following intervention. Results: In the intention-to-treat analysis, total stent length was 32.4 mm in the IVUS-guided arm versus 32.3 mm in angiography-guided arm (p = 0.84). Adjunct post-dilation was more frequently performed in the IVUS-guided arm (54.6% vs. 44.5%, p = 0.03); post-intervention minimal lumen diameters were similar (2.55 vs. 2.55 mm, respectively, p = 0.50); and MACE occurred in 12 (4.5%) patients in IVUS-guided arm and in 20 (7.3%) patients in the angiography-guided arm (p = 0.16). However, among the 269 patients assigned to IVUS guidance, IVUS was not used in 13 patients (4.8%); conversely, in 274 patients assigned to angiography alone, 41 patients (15.0%) were treated with IVUS guidance. Therefore, in a per-protocol analysis according to actual IVUS usage, minimum lumen diameter was larger (2.58 vs. 2.51 mm, p = 0.04), and MACE rates were lower: 4.0% in the IVUS-guided arm versus 8.1% in the angiography-guided arm (p = 0.048). Conclusions: A strategy of routine IVUS for drug-eluting stent implantation in long lesions did not improve the 1-year MACE rates. The IVUS use per operator decision was associated with improved results.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)369-376
Number of pages8
JournalJACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
Volume6
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013 Apr 1

Fingerprint

Drug-Eluting Stents
Coronary Stenosis
Angiography
Stents
Intention to Treat Analysis
Dilatation
Thrombosis
Metals
Myocardial Infarction

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

@article{6c7b252f176543118908b02bf02b507c,
title = "Randomized comparison of clinical outcomes between intravascular ultrasound and angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation for long coronary artery stenoses",
abstract = "Objectives: This study sought to assess the impact of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance on clinical outcomes following drug-eluting stent implantation when treating long lesions. Background: The role of IVUS guidance when treating long lesions has been tested during bare-metal stent, but not during drug-eluting stent, implantation. Methods: A total of 543 patients treated with stents ≥28 mm in length were randomly assigned to IVUS guidance (n = 269) versus angiography guidance (n = 274). The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, or stent thrombosis at 1 year following intervention. Results: In the intention-to-treat analysis, total stent length was 32.4 mm in the IVUS-guided arm versus 32.3 mm in angiography-guided arm (p = 0.84). Adjunct post-dilation was more frequently performed in the IVUS-guided arm (54.6{\%} vs. 44.5{\%}, p = 0.03); post-intervention minimal lumen diameters were similar (2.55 vs. 2.55 mm, respectively, p = 0.50); and MACE occurred in 12 (4.5{\%}) patients in IVUS-guided arm and in 20 (7.3{\%}) patients in the angiography-guided arm (p = 0.16). However, among the 269 patients assigned to IVUS guidance, IVUS was not used in 13 patients (4.8{\%}); conversely, in 274 patients assigned to angiography alone, 41 patients (15.0{\%}) were treated with IVUS guidance. Therefore, in a per-protocol analysis according to actual IVUS usage, minimum lumen diameter was larger (2.58 vs. 2.51 mm, p = 0.04), and MACE rates were lower: 4.0{\%} in the IVUS-guided arm versus 8.1{\%} in the angiography-guided arm (p = 0.048). Conclusions: A strategy of routine IVUS for drug-eluting stent implantation in long lesions did not improve the 1-year MACE rates. The IVUS use per operator decision was associated with improved results.",
author = "Kim, {Jung Sun} and Kang, {Tae Soo} and Mintz, {Gary S.} and Park, {Byoung Eun} and Shin, {Dong Ho} and Kim, {Byeong Keuk} and Ko, {Young Guk} and Donghoon Choi and Yangsoo Jang and Hong, {Myeong Ki}",
year = "2013",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jcin.2012.11.009",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
pages = "369--376",
journal = "JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions",
issn = "1936-8798",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "4",

}

Randomized comparison of clinical outcomes between intravascular ultrasound and angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation for long coronary artery stenoses. / Kim, Jung Sun; Kang, Tae Soo; Mintz, Gary S.; Park, Byoung Eun; Shin, Dong Ho; Kim, Byeong Keuk; Ko, Young Guk; Choi, Donghoon; Jang, Yangsoo; Hong, Myeong Ki.

In: JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, Vol. 6, No. 4, 01.04.2013, p. 369-376.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Randomized comparison of clinical outcomes between intravascular ultrasound and angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation for long coronary artery stenoses

AU - Kim, Jung Sun

AU - Kang, Tae Soo

AU - Mintz, Gary S.

AU - Park, Byoung Eun

AU - Shin, Dong Ho

AU - Kim, Byeong Keuk

AU - Ko, Young Guk

AU - Choi, Donghoon

AU - Jang, Yangsoo

AU - Hong, Myeong Ki

PY - 2013/4/1

Y1 - 2013/4/1

N2 - Objectives: This study sought to assess the impact of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance on clinical outcomes following drug-eluting stent implantation when treating long lesions. Background: The role of IVUS guidance when treating long lesions has been tested during bare-metal stent, but not during drug-eluting stent, implantation. Methods: A total of 543 patients treated with stents ≥28 mm in length were randomly assigned to IVUS guidance (n = 269) versus angiography guidance (n = 274). The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, or stent thrombosis at 1 year following intervention. Results: In the intention-to-treat analysis, total stent length was 32.4 mm in the IVUS-guided arm versus 32.3 mm in angiography-guided arm (p = 0.84). Adjunct post-dilation was more frequently performed in the IVUS-guided arm (54.6% vs. 44.5%, p = 0.03); post-intervention minimal lumen diameters were similar (2.55 vs. 2.55 mm, respectively, p = 0.50); and MACE occurred in 12 (4.5%) patients in IVUS-guided arm and in 20 (7.3%) patients in the angiography-guided arm (p = 0.16). However, among the 269 patients assigned to IVUS guidance, IVUS was not used in 13 patients (4.8%); conversely, in 274 patients assigned to angiography alone, 41 patients (15.0%) were treated with IVUS guidance. Therefore, in a per-protocol analysis according to actual IVUS usage, minimum lumen diameter was larger (2.58 vs. 2.51 mm, p = 0.04), and MACE rates were lower: 4.0% in the IVUS-guided arm versus 8.1% in the angiography-guided arm (p = 0.048). Conclusions: A strategy of routine IVUS for drug-eluting stent implantation in long lesions did not improve the 1-year MACE rates. The IVUS use per operator decision was associated with improved results.

AB - Objectives: This study sought to assess the impact of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance on clinical outcomes following drug-eluting stent implantation when treating long lesions. Background: The role of IVUS guidance when treating long lesions has been tested during bare-metal stent, but not during drug-eluting stent, implantation. Methods: A total of 543 patients treated with stents ≥28 mm in length were randomly assigned to IVUS guidance (n = 269) versus angiography guidance (n = 274). The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, or stent thrombosis at 1 year following intervention. Results: In the intention-to-treat analysis, total stent length was 32.4 mm in the IVUS-guided arm versus 32.3 mm in angiography-guided arm (p = 0.84). Adjunct post-dilation was more frequently performed in the IVUS-guided arm (54.6% vs. 44.5%, p = 0.03); post-intervention minimal lumen diameters were similar (2.55 vs. 2.55 mm, respectively, p = 0.50); and MACE occurred in 12 (4.5%) patients in IVUS-guided arm and in 20 (7.3%) patients in the angiography-guided arm (p = 0.16). However, among the 269 patients assigned to IVUS guidance, IVUS was not used in 13 patients (4.8%); conversely, in 274 patients assigned to angiography alone, 41 patients (15.0%) were treated with IVUS guidance. Therefore, in a per-protocol analysis according to actual IVUS usage, minimum lumen diameter was larger (2.58 vs. 2.51 mm, p = 0.04), and MACE rates were lower: 4.0% in the IVUS-guided arm versus 8.1% in the angiography-guided arm (p = 0.048). Conclusions: A strategy of routine IVUS for drug-eluting stent implantation in long lesions did not improve the 1-year MACE rates. The IVUS use per operator decision was associated with improved results.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84876411741&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84876411741&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jcin.2012.11.009

DO - 10.1016/j.jcin.2012.11.009

M3 - Article

C2 - 23523455

AN - SCOPUS:84876411741

VL - 6

SP - 369

EP - 376

JO - JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions

JF - JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions

SN - 1936-8798

IS - 4

ER -