BACKGROUND: Usefulness and efficacy of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) for the implantation of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) is controversial. We investigated the primary and mid-term results of SES deployment with angiographic guidance comparing with IVUS guidance, retrospectively. METHODS AND RESULTS: SESs were deployed in 480 de novo lesions of 459 patients (341 lesions treated without IVUS and 139 lesions treated using IVUS); 368 lesions underwent follow-up coronary angiography. Late luminal loss, in-stent restenosis (ISR) rate and target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate were not significantly different between the non-IVUS group and the IVUS group. There was no acute thrombosis or other major adverse cardiac events except for TLR in both groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that SES implantation without IVUS was not an independent risk factor for restenosis. On the other hand, in one case, target-vessel revascularization was difficult because of the mal-apposition of the SES previously implanted without IVUS. CONCLUSIONS: For lesions for which stent size and endpoint are decided from angiographic information alone, angio-guided SES implantation is safe and provides a good mid-term outcome that is comparable to the IVUS-guided SES stent deployment., while IVUS may be helpful to decide stent size for complex lesions and reduce possible complications.
BACKGROUND: Usefulness and efficacy of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) for the implantation of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) is controversial. We investigated the primary and mid-term results of SES deployment with angiographic guidance comparing with IVUS guidance, retrospectively. METHODS AND RESULTS: SESs were deployed in 480 de novo lesions of 459 patients (341 lesions treated without IVUS and 139 lesions treated using IVUS); 368 lesions underwent follow-up coronary angiography. Late luminal loss, in-stent restenosis (ISR) rate and target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate were not significantly different between the non-IVUS group and the IVUS group. There was no acute thrombosis or other major adverse cardiac events except for TLR in both groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that SES implantation without IVUS was not an independent risk factor for restenosis. On the other hand, in one case, target-vessel revascularization was difficult because of the mal-apposition of the SES previously implanted without IVUS. CONCLUSIONS: For lesions for which stent size and endpoint are decided from angiographic information alone, angio-guided SES implantation is safe and provides a good mid-term outcome that is comparable to the IVUS-guided SES stent deployment., while IVUS may be helpful to decide stent size for complex lesions and reduce possible complications.