We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Resource utilization and clinical outcomes of coronary stenting: a comparison of intravascular ultrasound and angiographical guided stent implantation.
American Heart Journal 2001 July
BACKGROUND: Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guided stent implantation studies have demonstrated that inadequate stent implantation can occur despite achieving an optimal angiographic result. Furthermore, IVUS-guided stent implantation has been shown to improve lesional acute gain. However, it is unknown whether the use of IVUS guidance during stent implantation is associated with improved acute and long-term clinical outcomes. Moreover, the additional procedural cost and time incurred with the use of IVUS-directed stent implantation has not been evaluated. Thus the purpose of this study was to determine whether IVUS-guided stent implantation is associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with angiographically guided stent implantation and to evaluate the difference in resource utilization between these respective stent deployment strategies.
METHODS: Data were collected on 278 consecutive patients in whom 455 stents were deployed in native coronary arteries. High-pressure (> or = 12 atm) balloon inflations were performed until an optimal angiographic result was obtained. In the angiographically guided group, no IVUS imaging was performed. In the IVUS-guided group, IVUS imaging and additional interventions were performed attempting to achieve full apposition, absence of edge tear, and acute gain (lesion lumen area: distal reference lumen area) > or = 0.8 in subsequent IVUS imaging. Total procedure time, fluoroscopy time, contrast media volume, number of balloons, stents, guidewires, guide catheters, and procedural cost were calculated. In hospital abrupt closure rate and 6-month major adverse cardiovascular events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization) rate were obtained.
RESULTS: A total of 178 patients underwent IVUS-guided stent placement and 100 patients underwent angiographically guided stent implantation. There was no significant difference in procedure time (107 +/- 49 vs 100 +/- 50 minutes, P = .22), fluoroscopy time (33 +/- 24 vs 30 +/- 18 minutes, P = .36), contrast volume (411 +/- 157 vs 386 +/- 181 mL, P = .23), guide catheters (1.3 +/- 0.8 vs 1.3 +/- 0.6, P = .69), guidewires (1.6 +/- 1.2 vs 1.6 +/- 1.0, P = .99), balloons (2.4 +/- 1.0 vs 2.3 +/- 1.3, P = .58), and stents (1.7 +/- 0.9 vs 1.6 +/- 0.9, P = .42). Intraprocedural cost was significantly higher in the IVUS-guided group, $4142 +/- 1547 verus $3635 +/- 1949 (P = .03), which was primarily related to the cost of the IVUS catheter. However, the in-hospital acute vessel closure rate was significantly lower in the IVUS-guided group, 0.6% versus 4% (P = .04). There was a trend toward lower target vessel revascularization rate in the IVUS-guided group (11% vs 19%, P = .08). By multivariate analysis IVUS use was demonstrated to be an independent negative predictor of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and abrupt stent closure with a relative risk of 0.49 (95% confidence interval of 0.25 to 0.98), and P = .04.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of IVUS guidance during stent implantation does not significantly increase procedure time, fluoroscopy exposure, contrast volume, or device utilization. Furthermore, despite the increase in procedural cost, IVUS-guided stent implantation is associated with a significant decrease in the in-hospital abrupt closure rate and a trend toward a lower 6-month target vessel revascularization.
METHODS: Data were collected on 278 consecutive patients in whom 455 stents were deployed in native coronary arteries. High-pressure (> or = 12 atm) balloon inflations were performed until an optimal angiographic result was obtained. In the angiographically guided group, no IVUS imaging was performed. In the IVUS-guided group, IVUS imaging and additional interventions were performed attempting to achieve full apposition, absence of edge tear, and acute gain (lesion lumen area: distal reference lumen area) > or = 0.8 in subsequent IVUS imaging. Total procedure time, fluoroscopy time, contrast media volume, number of balloons, stents, guidewires, guide catheters, and procedural cost were calculated. In hospital abrupt closure rate and 6-month major adverse cardiovascular events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization) rate were obtained.
RESULTS: A total of 178 patients underwent IVUS-guided stent placement and 100 patients underwent angiographically guided stent implantation. There was no significant difference in procedure time (107 +/- 49 vs 100 +/- 50 minutes, P = .22), fluoroscopy time (33 +/- 24 vs 30 +/- 18 minutes, P = .36), contrast volume (411 +/- 157 vs 386 +/- 181 mL, P = .23), guide catheters (1.3 +/- 0.8 vs 1.3 +/- 0.6, P = .69), guidewires (1.6 +/- 1.2 vs 1.6 +/- 1.0, P = .99), balloons (2.4 +/- 1.0 vs 2.3 +/- 1.3, P = .58), and stents (1.7 +/- 0.9 vs 1.6 +/- 0.9, P = .42). Intraprocedural cost was significantly higher in the IVUS-guided group, $4142 +/- 1547 verus $3635 +/- 1949 (P = .03), which was primarily related to the cost of the IVUS catheter. However, the in-hospital acute vessel closure rate was significantly lower in the IVUS-guided group, 0.6% versus 4% (P = .04). There was a trend toward lower target vessel revascularization rate in the IVUS-guided group (11% vs 19%, P = .08). By multivariate analysis IVUS use was demonstrated to be an independent negative predictor of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and abrupt stent closure with a relative risk of 0.49 (95% confidence interval of 0.25 to 0.98), and P = .04.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of IVUS guidance during stent implantation does not significantly increase procedure time, fluoroscopy exposure, contrast volume, or device utilization. Furthermore, despite the increase in procedural cost, IVUS-guided stent implantation is associated with a significant decrease in the in-hospital abrupt closure rate and a trend toward a lower 6-month target vessel revascularization.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app