IVUS-Guided Coronary Angioplasty: Promising Results at 3-Year Follow-Up

Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) to guide drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation has been evaluated in several studies. Two randomized studies, IVUS-XPL (Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance on the Outcomes of Xience Prime Stents in Long Lesions) and ULTIMATE (Intravascular Ultrasound Guided Drug Eluting Stents Implantation in All-Comers Coronary Lesions), have shown fewer repeat revascularizations compared with angiography-guided stent implantation. However, there were no differences in terms of cardiovascular death, stent thrombosis, or AMI; this was linked to the low number of events in each study.

Angioplastia coronaria guiada con IVUS: resultados alentadores en el seguimiento a 3 años

The aim of this study was to analyze patients from the IVUS-XPL and ULTIMATE studies to increase the statistical power that would allow researchers to detect whether IVUS-guided DES implantation has a long-term impact on patient survival (free from cardiovascular death). To do so, only lesions with a length ≥28mm were evaluated.

The primary endpoint (PEP) was cardiovascular death. The secondary endpoint (SEP) was a composite of cardiovascular death, AMI, stent thrombosis, and ischemia-driven revascularization.

The study enrolled 2577 randomized patients, 1289 to the IVUS-guided group, and 1288 to the angiography-guided group.

The mean age was 65 years, 70% of patients were male, and over half of them had hypertension. The most frequent clinical presentation was unstable angina. The most affected artery was the anterior descending artery.

Read also: Passive Leg Raise: An Indispensable Maneuver in the Study of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.

The PEP was reached in 1% of the IVUS group vs. 2.2% of patients in the angiography group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22 to 0.84; p = 0.011). Furthermore, there were significant differences in favor of the IVUS group in the SEP (HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.80; p = 0.005) at the expense of a lower ischemia-driven revascularization rate (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.82; p = 0.002).

At the 3-year follow-up, patients who met IVUS-measured stent optimization criteria had experienced fewer events (composite of cardiovascular death, AMI, stent thrombosis, and ischemia-driven revascularization) compared with those who did not meet optimization criteria.

Conclusion

Using IVUS to guide DES implantation compared with angiography alone resulted in improved cardiovascular survival and a decreased rate of major events (cardiovascular death, AMI, stent thrombosis) at the 3-year follow-up. In addition, patients who met the criteria for stent optimization compared with those who did not had significantly lower rates of cardiovascular death, AMI, stent thrombosis, and revascularization of the treated vessel at follow-up.

Dr. Andrés Rodríguez
Member of the editorial board in SOLACI.org .

Original Title: Improved 3-Year Cardiac Survival After IVUS–guided Long DES Implantation A Patient-Level Analysis From 2 Randomized Trials.

Reference: Sung-Jin Hong, MD, et al J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2022;15:208–216.


Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiology

More articles by this author

iFR- vs. FFR-Guided Coronary Revascularization: 5-Year Clinical Outcomes

The assessment of coronary stenosis using coronary physiology has become a key tool in guiding revascularization. The two most widely used techniques are fractional...

Patients at High Risk of Bleeding After Coronary Angioplasty: Are Risk Assessment Tools ARC-HBR and PRECISE-DAPT Useful?

Patients undergoing coronary stenting typically receive dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 6 to 12 months, consisting of a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor and aspirin. While DAPT...

ACC 2025 | WARRIOR: Ischemia in Women with Non-Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease

Approximately half of all women with symptomatic ischemia who undergo coronary angiography are found to have non-obstructive coronary artery disease ((ischemia and non-obstructive coronary...

ACC 2025 | FLAVOUR II: Angiography-Derived FFR-Guided vs. IVUS-Guided PCI

Physiological assessment is effective when it comes to decision-making for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, despite the available evidence, its use remains limited. AngioFFR...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

RACE Trial: Effect of Balloon Pulmonary Angioplasty and Riociguat on Right Ventricular Afterload and Function in Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension

Even though pulmonary endarterectomy is the treatment of choice for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), up to 40% of patients are not candidates because...

iFR- vs. FFR-Guided Coronary Revascularization: 5-Year Clinical Outcomes

The assessment of coronary stenosis using coronary physiology has become a key tool in guiding revascularization. The two most widely used techniques are fractional...

TAVR in Small Annuli: What Valve Should We Use?

One of the major challenges of severe aortic stenosis are patients with small aortic annuli, defined as ≤430 mm² aortic valve area. This condition...