BACKGROUND: The impact of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) use on stenting has shown inconclusive results. OBJECTIVE: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of IVUS on stenting regarding the clinical and angiographic evolution. METHODS: A search was performed in Medline/Pubmed, CENTRAL, Embase, Lilacs, Scopus and Web of Science databases. It included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the implantation of stents guided by IVUS, compared with those using angiography alone (ANGIO). The minimum follow-up duration was six months and the following outcomes were assessed: thrombosis, mortality, myocardial infarction, percutaneous and surgical revascularization, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and restenosis. The binary outcomes were presented considering the number of events in each group; the estimates were generated by a random effects model, considering Mantel-Haenszel statistics as weighting agent and magnitude of effect for the relative risk (RR) with its respective 95% confidence interval (95%CI). Higgins I² test was used to quantify the consistency between the results of each study. RESULTS: A total of 2,689 articles were evaluated, including 8 RCTs. There was a 27% reduction in angiographic restenosis (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.54-0.97, I² = 51%) and statistically significant reduction in the rates of percutaneous revascularization and overall (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.53, I² = 61%, RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.99, I² = 55%), with no statistical difference in surgical revascularization (RR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.52-1.74, I² = 0%) in favor of IVUS vs. ANGIO. There were no differences regarding the other outcomes in the comparison between the two strategies. CONCLUSION: Angioplasty with stenting guided by IVUS decreases the rates of restenosis and revascularization, with no impact on MACE, acute myocardial infarction, mortality or thrombosis outcomes.
BACKGROUND: The impact of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) use on stenting has shown inconclusive results. OBJECTIVE: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of IVUS on stenting regarding the clinical and angiographic evolution. METHODS: A search was performed in Medline/Pubmed, CENTRAL, Embase, Lilacs, Scopus and Web of Science databases. It included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the implantation of stents guided by IVUS, compared with those using angiography alone (ANGIO). The minimum follow-up duration was six months and the following outcomes were assessed: thrombosis, mortality, myocardial infarction, percutaneous and surgical revascularization, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and restenosis. The binary outcomes were presented considering the number of events in each group; the estimates were generated by a random effects model, considering Mantel-Haenszel statistics as weighting agent and magnitude of effect for the relative risk (RR) with its respective 95% confidence interval (95%CI). Higgins I² test was used to quantify the consistency between the results of each study. RESULTS: A total of 2,689 articles were evaluated, including 8 RCTs. There was a 27% reduction in angiographic restenosis (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.54-0.97, I² = 51%) and statistically significant reduction in the rates of percutaneous revascularization and overall (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.53, I² = 61%, RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.99, I² = 55%), with no statistical difference in surgical revascularization (RR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.52-1.74, I² = 0%) in favor of IVUS vs. ANGIO. There were no differences regarding the other outcomes in the comparison between the two strategies. CONCLUSION: Angioplasty with stenting guided by IVUS decreases the rates of restenosis and revascularization, with no impact on MACE, acute myocardial infarction, mortality or thrombosis outcomes.
Authors: Ryota Sakurai; Junya Ako; Yoshihiro Morino; Shinjo Sonoda; Hideaki Kaneda; Mitsuyasu Terashima; Ali H M Hassan; Martin B Leon; Jeffrey W Moses; Jeffrey J Popma; Heidi N Bonneau; Paul G Yock; Peter J Fitzgerald; Yasuhiro Honda Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2005-09-06 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Hideo Takebayashi; Yoshio Kobayashi; Gary S Mintz; Stéphane G Carlier; Kenichi Fujii; Takenori Yasuda; Issam Moussa; Roxana Mehran; George D Dangas; Michael B Collins; Edward Kreps; Alexandra J Lansky; Gregg W Stone; Martin B Leon; Jeffrey W Moses Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2005-02-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Robert J Gil; Tomasz Pawłowski; Dariusz Dudek; Grzegorz Horszczaruk; Krzysztof Zmudka; Maciej Lesiak; Adam Witkowski; Andrzej Ochała; Jacek Kubica Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Stéphane Cook; Peter Wenaweser; Mario Togni; Michael Billinger; Cyrill Morger; Christian Seiler; Rolf Vogel; Otto Hess; Bernhard Meier; Stephan Windecker Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-05-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: F Schiele; N Meneveau; A Vuillemenot; D D Zhang; S Gupta; M Mercier; N Danchin; B Bertrand; J P Bassand Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Antonio Marzocchi; Francesco Saia; Giancarlo Piovaccari; Antonio Manari; Enrico Aurier; Alberto Benassi; Alberto Cremonesi; Gianfranco Percoco; Elisabetta Varani; Paolo Magnavacchi; Paolo Guastaroba; Roberto Grilli; Aleardo Maresta Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-06-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Probal Roy; Daniel H Steinberg; Steven J Sushinsky; Teruo Okabe; Tina L Pinto Slottow; Kimberly Kaneshige; Zhenyi Xue; Lowell F Satler; Kenneth M Kent; William O Suddath; Augusto D Pichard; Neil J Weissman; Joseph Lindsay; Ron Waksman Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2008-06-11 Impact factor: 29.983