Abstract
In this issue of the International Journal of Cardiology, Groenland and colleagues evaluated the impact of IVUS-guided vs Angiographically-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in a systematic review and meta-analysis [ [1] Groenland F.T.W. Neleman T. Kakar H. Scoccia A. Ziedses des Plantes A.C. PRD Clephas Chatterjee S. Zhu M. den Dekker W.K. Diletti R. Zijlstra F. Mahmoud K.D. Van Mieghem N.M. Daemen J. Intravascular ultrasound-guided versus coronary angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Cardiol. 2022 Jan 15; (S0167-5273(22)00068-7. (Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35041893))https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2022.01.021 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar ]. The authors included 9 studies, (8 observational and 1 randomized controlled trial), encompassing 838.902 patients treated with PCI for AMI. Of note, ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) was the most frequent presentation (92.8%). Intravascular ultrasound-guided versus coronary angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysisInternational Journal of CardiologyVol. 353PreviewIntravascular ultrasound (IVUS) can overcome the intrinsic limitations of coronary angiography for lesion assessment and stenting. IVUS improves outcomes of patients presenting with stable or complex coronary artery disease, but dedicated data on the impact of IVUS-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains scarce. Full-Text PDF Open Access
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
