Intravascular Ultrasound Group Research Articles

Comparative Effectiveness of Intravascular Ultrasound versus Angiography in Abdominal and Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The effectiveness of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) with angiography compared with angiography-guidance alone in the treatment of aortic conditions, such as dissections, aneurysms, and blunt traumatic injuries, remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the current literature for IVUS use during thoracic (TEVAR) and abdominal (EVAR) endovascular aortic repair. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases was conducted in March 2024 adhering to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies comparing outcomes of TEVAR/EVAR with and without IVUS were identified. The outcomes of interest included contrast volume, fluoroscopy and procedural time, perioperative endoleak, and reinterventions and all-cause mortality during follow-up. Data with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted. Pooled analysis was performed using a random-effect model. Subgroup analysis was performed stratified by the condition being treated. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. A total of 4219 patients (n=2655 IVUS and n=1564 non-IVUS) from 9 observational studies were included. The IVUS group exhibited a reduction in contrast agent volume (weighted mean difference (WMD) [95% CI] = -34.65 mL [-54.73, -14.57]) and fluoroscopy time (WMD [95% CI] = -6.13 min [-11.10, -1.15]), with no difference in procedural time. The perioperative type I and III endoleak occurrence were similar (RR [95% CI] = 2.36 [0.55-10.11], RR [95% CI] = 0.72 [0.09-5.77], respectively). Reintervention and mortality during follow-up were comparable (HR [95% CI] = 0.80 [0.33-1.97], HR [95% CI] = 0.75 [0.47-1.18], respectively). All the included studies had low risks of bias. In conclusion, this meta-analysis provides evidence that IVUS enables the safe deployment of TEVAR/EVAR with reduced contrast agent less radiation exposure.

Intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes (IVUS-ACS): a two-stage, multicentre, randomised trial

Intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention has been shown to result in superior clinical outcomes compared with angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention. However, insufficient data are available concerning the advantages of intravascular ultrasound guidance for patients with an acute coronary syndrome. This trial aimed to investigate whether the use of intravascular ultrasound guidance, as compared with angiography guidance, improves the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention with contemporary drug-eluting stents in patients presenting with an acute coronary syndrome. In this two-stage, multicentre, randomised trial, patients aged 18 years or older and presenting with an acute coronary syndrome at 58 centres in China, Italy, Pakistan, and the UK were randomly assigned to intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention or angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients, follow-up health-care providers, and assessors were masked to random assignment; however, staff in the catheterisation laboratory were not. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularisation at 1 year after randomisation. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03971500, and is completed. Between Aug 20, 2019 and Oct 27, 2022, 3505 patients with an acute coronary syndrome were randomly assigned to intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (n=1753) or angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (n=1752). 1-year follow-up was completed in 3504 (>99·9%) patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 70 patients in the intravascular ultrasound group and 128 patients in the angiography group (Kaplan-Meier rate 4·0% vs 7·3%; hazard ratio 0·55 [95% CI 0·41-0·74]; p=0·0001), driven by reductions in target vessel myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularisation. There were no significant differences in all-cause death or stent thrombosis between groups. Safety endpoints were also similar in the two groups. In patients with an acute coronary syndrome, intravascular ultrasound-guided implantation of contemporary drug-eluting stents resulted in a lower 1-year rate of the composite outcome of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven revascularisation compared with angiography guidance alone. The Chinese Society of Cardiology, the National Natural Scientific Foundation of China, and Jiangsu Provincial & Nanjing Municipal Clinical Trial Project. For the Mandarin translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Meta-analysis of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation with intravascular ultrasound guidance.

To conduct a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) during transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation. MEDLINE and Embase databases were queried until July 2022 for comparative studies reporting procedure metrics for TIPS creation with or without IVUS guidance. Meta-analysis was performed with random-effects modeling for total procedural time, time to portal venous access, fluoroscopy time, iodinated contrast volume use, air kerma, dose area product, and number of needle passes. Intraoperative procedure-related complications were also reviewed. Of 95 unique records initially identified, 6 were eligible for inclusion. A total of 194 and 240 patients underwent TIPS with and without IVUS guidance. Pooled analyses indicated that IVUS guidance was associated with reduced total procedure time (SMD -0.76 [95% CI -1.02, -0.50] P < 0.001), time to portal venous access (SMD -0.41 [95% CI -0.67, -0.15] P = 0.002), fluoroscopy time (SMD, -0.54 [95% CI -1.02, -0.07]; P = 0.002), contrast volume use (SMD, -0.89 [95% CI -1.16, -0.63]; P < 0.001), air kerma (SMD, -0.75 [95% CI -1.11, -0.38]; P < 0.001) and dose area product (SMD, -0.98 [95% CI -1.77, -0.20]; P = 0.013). 4.2 and 7.8 needle passes were required in the IVUS and non-IVUS group, respectively (SMD, -0.60 [95% CI -1.42, 0.21]; P = 0.134), whereas pooled complication rates were 15.2% (12/79), and 21.4% (28/131), respectively. IVUS guidance during TIPS creation improves procedural metrics including procedural time, contrast usage, and radiation exposure.

Intervención coronaria percutánea guiada por tomografía de coherencia óptica frente a guiada por ecografía intravascular en pacientes con infarto agudo de miocardio

Introduction and objectivesOptical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) yields clinical outcomes comparable to intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided PCI in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. However, there is a scarcity of data comparing the clinical outcomes of OCT-guided and IVUS-guided PCI in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We sought to compare the clinical outcomes of OCT-guided vs IVUS-guided PCI for patients with AMI in the era of second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES). MethodsWe identified 5260 consecutive patients who underwent PCI with a second-generation DES for AMI under IVUS or OCT guidance from pooled data derived from a series of Korean AMI registries between 2011 and 2020. The primary endpoint was the 1-year rate of target lesion failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. ResultsA total of 535 (10.2%) and 4725 (89.8%) patients were treated under OCT and IVUS guidance, respectively. The 1-year target lesion failure rates were comparable between the OCT and IVUS groups before and after propensity score matching (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95%CI, 0.42-2.05, P=.84). The OCT utilization rate did not exceed 5% of total patients treated with second-generation DES implantation during the study period. The primary factors for the selection of OCT over IVUS were the absence of chronic kidney disease, non-left main vessel disease, single-vessel disease, stent diameter <3mm, and stent length ≤ 25mm. ConclusionsOCT-guided PCI in patients with AMI treated with a second-generation DES provided comparable clinical outcomes for 1-year target lesion failure compared with IVUS-guided PCI.

Long-term outcomes of intravascular ultrasound-guided drug-eluting stents implantation in patients with acute coronary syndrome: ULTIMATE ACS subgroup

Objective: To explore the long-term effects of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance on patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing drug-eluting stents (DES) implantation. Methods: Data used in this study derived from ULTIMATE trial, which was a prospective, multicenter, randomized study. A total of 1 448 all-comer patients were enrolled between 2014 August and 2017 May. Primary endpoint of this study was target vessel failure (TVF) at 3 years, including cardiac death, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, and clinically-driven target vessel revascularization. Results: ACS was present in 1 136 (78.5%) patients, and 3-year clinical follow-up was available in 1 423 patients (98.3%). TVF in the ACS group was 9.6% (109/1 136), which was significantly higher than 4.5% (14/312) in the non-ACS group (log-rank P=0.005). There were 109 TVFs in the ACS patients, with 7.6% (43/569) TVFs in the IVUS group and 11.6% (66/567) TVFs in the angiography group (log-rank P=0.019). Moreover, patients with optimal IVUS guidance were associated with a lower risk of 3-year TVF compared to those with suboptimal IVUS results (5.4% (16/296) vs. 9.9% (27/273),log-rank P=0.041). Conclusions: This ULTIMATE-ACS subgroup analysis showed that ACS patients undergoing DES implantation were associated with a higher risk of 3-year TVF. More importantly, the risk of TVF could be significantly decreased through IVUS guidance in patients with ACS, especially in those who had an IVUS-defined optimal procedure.

Long-term impact of intravascular ultrasound-guidance for percutaneous coronary intervention on unprotected left main. The IMPACTUS-LM, an observational, multicentric study

IntroductionThe potential benefit on long term outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) on Unprotected Left Main (ULM) driven by IntraVascular UltraSound (IVUS) remains to be defined. MethodsIMPACTUS LM-PCI is an observational, multicenter study that enrolled consecutive patients with ULM disease undergoing coronary angioplasty in 13 European high-volume centers from January 2002 to December 2015. Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACEs) a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, target vessel revascularization (TVR) and myocardial infarction (MI) were the primary endpoints, while its single components along with all cause death the secondary ones. Results627 patients with ULM disease were enrolled, 213 patients (34%) underwent IVUS-guided PCI while 414 (66%) angioguided PCI. Patients in the two cohorts had similar prevalence of risk factors except for active smoking and clinical presentation. During a median follow-up of 7.5 years, 47 (22%) patients in the IVUS group and 211 (51%) in the angio-guided group underwent the primary endpoint (HR 0.42; 95% CI [0.31–0.58] p < 0.001). After multivariate adjustment, IVUS was significantly associated with a reduced incidence of the primary endpoint (adj HR 0.39; 95% CI [0.23–0.64], p < 0.001), mainly driven by a reduction of TVR (ad HR 0.30, 95% CI [0.15–0.62], p = 0.001) and of all-cause death (adj HR 0.47, 95% CI [0.28–0.82], p = 0.008). IVUS use, age, diabetes, side branch stenosis, DES and creatinine at admission were independent predictors of MACE. ConclusionsIn patients undergoing ULM PCI, the use of IVUS was associated with a reduced risk at long-term follow-up of MACE, all-cause death and subsequent revascularization.

Effect of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel after implantation of drug-eluting stents guided by either intravascular ultrasound or angiography in patients with acute coronary syndrome-propensity score matching analysis.

The effect of different dual antiplatelet therapies on thrombotic events on the background of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance is unclear. We investigated whether ticagrelor can provide any additional benefit to clopidogrel in reducing thrombotic events in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated with drug- eluting stent (DES), when guided by IVUS or not. A total of 5,666 ACS patients who underwent DES implantation and who were discharged on dual antiplatelet therapy were enrolled and grouped according to the use of IVUS or not. Each group was subdivided into two subgroups according to the type of P2Y12 inhibitor used after discharge. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used between the IVUS and no-IVUS groups. Covariate adjustment of Cox proportional hazards model was used between the ticagrelor and clopidogrel groups. Thrombotic event at 12 months was compared in groups separately. After PSM, 12-month follow-up data were available for 1,174 patients. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were less frequent in the IVUS-guided group (2.2% vs. 4.3%, P = 0.081) with a trend toward statistical significance. Comparison of antiplatelet regimens revealed significantly fewer major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) with ticagrelor in the entire PSM cohort and angiography-guided subgroup (2.9% vs. 5.7%, P = 0.035; 3.1% vs. 6.4%, P = 0.020, respectively). Among patients in the IVUS-guided group the outcome was comparable (2.5% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.312). Ticagrelor was associated with increasing bleeding incidence in the entire PSM cohort (1.3% vs. 3.3%, P = 0.030), mainly due to Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2 bleeding (0.7% vs. 2.6%, P = 0.010). The results were consistent after covariate adjustment of Cox proportional hazards model. The comparison of ischemic benefit between ticagrelor and clopidogrel was similar in patients receiving IVUS guidance during stent implantation, probably due to the precise implantation of IVUS. Multicenter, randomized studies should be performed to validate this conclusion.

Optical coherence tomography-guided versus intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction

Introduction and objectivesOptical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) yields clinical outcomes comparable to intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided PCI in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. However, there is a scarcity of data comparing the clinical outcomes of OCT-guided and IVUS-guided PCI in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We sought to compare the clinical outcomes of OCT-guided vs IVUS-guided PCI for patients with AMI in the era of second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES). MethodsWe identified 5260 consecutive patients who underwent PCI with a second-generation DES for AMI under IVUS or OCT guidance from pooled data derived from a series of Korean AMI registries between 2011 and 2020. The primary endpoint was the 1-year rate of target lesion failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. ResultsA total of 535 (10.2%) and 4725 (89.8%) patients were treated under OCT and IVUS guidance, respectively. The 1-year target lesion failure rates were comparable between the OCT and IVUS groups before and after propensity score matching (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95%CI, 0.42-2.05, P=.84). The OCT utilization rate did not exceed 5% of total patients treated with second-generation DES implantation during the study period. The primary factors for the selection of OCT over IVUS were the absence of chronic kidney disease, non-left main vessel disease, single-vessel disease, stent diameter <3mm, and stent length ≤ 25mm. ConclusionsOCT-guided PCI in patients with AMI treated with a second-generation DES provided comparable clinical outcomes for 1-year target lesion failure compared with IVUS-guided PCI.

Clinical Outcomes of Deferred Lesions by IVUS Versus FFR-Guided Treatment Decision.

There are limited data regarding the safety of deferral of percutaneous coronary intervention based on intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) findings. The current study sought to compare the prognosis between deferred lesions based on IVUS and fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided treatment decision. This study is a post hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR randomized trial (Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular Ultrasound for Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Intermediate Stenosis) that compared 2-year clinical outcomes between IVUS- and FFR-guided treatment decision on intermediate coronary artery lesions using predefined criteria. In both IVUS and FFR groups, vessels were classified into deferred or revascularized vessels, and patients were classified as those with or without deferred lesions. Vessel-oriented composite outcomes (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) in deferred vessels and patient-oriented composite outcomes (death, myocardial infarction, or any revascularization) in patients with deferred lesions were compared between the IVUS and FFR groups. A total of 1682 patients and 1820 vessels were analyzed, of which 922 patients and 989 vessels were deferred. At 2 years, there was no difference in the cumulative incidence of vessel-oriented composite outcomes in deferred vessels between IVUS (n=375) and FFR (n=614) groups (3.8% versus 4.1%; hazard ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.47-1.75]; P=0.77). The risk of vessel-oriented composite outcomes was comparable between deferred and revascularized vessels following treatment decision by IVUS (3.8% versus 3.5%; hazard ratio, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.54-2.19]; P=0.81) and FFR (4.1% versus 3.6%; hazard ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.56-2.32]; P=0.72). In comparison of patient-oriented composite outcomes in patients with deferred lesions, there was no significant difference between the IVUS (n=357) and FFR (n=565) groups (6.2% versus 5.9%; hazard ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.61-1.80]; P=0.86). In patients with intermediate coronary artery stenosis, deferral of percutaneous coronary intervention based on IVUS-guided treatment decision showed comparable risk of clinical events with FFR-guided treatment decision. URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02673424.

Evaluation of the residual myocardial ischemia after PCI to long diffuse left anterior descending artery lesions: comparison of IVUS vs FFR

Abstract Background Up to 30% of coronary artery lesions continue to induce myocardial ischemia (FFR ≤ 0.8) despite angiographically successful PCI. This proportion is even larger after PCI to the left anterior descending (LAD) artery as it supplies blood to the largest myocardial territory and often has diffuse disease. Post PCI FFR is an important tool to risk stratify patients, as lower values are associated with a worse prognosis. Therefore, achieving a good functional PCI result after LAD treatment is crucial. PCI optimization tools such as intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and FFR were both proven to be superior to angiography-guided PCI, however, there is a lack of studies comparing these two modalities head-to-head, especially in the long LAD lesions. Purpose To compare functional PCI result assessed with FFR measured immediately post PCI and at 9-12 months follow-up between IVUS optimization and FFR optimization strategies after percutaneous treatment of long LAD lesions. Methods This was a single center observational study, which enrolled 127 patients. 61 patients underwent PCI optimized with FFR (historical FFR optimization group) and for 66 patients PCI was optimized with IVUS. FFR measurement was performed using intravenous adenosine with a pullback before and after PCI for all patients. Post PCI FFR was recorded in both groups when the PCI result was considered to be final and no more optimization was performed afterwards. Patients also underwent invasive follow-up at 9-12 months post PCI with FFR measurement at the same location (Figure 1). A case example of IVUS optimization strategy is demonstrated in Figure 2. Results The average patients age (66.5 ± 9.5) and baseline clinical characteristics (males 70.1%, diabetes 20.5%, hypertension 92.1%, dyslipidemia 91.3%, smoking 23.0%, chronic kidney disease 21.3%) did not differ between IVUS and FFR optimization groups. IVUS strategy resulted in the longer stented segment compared to FFR group (62 [48-75] mm vs 52 [36-63] mm, p=0.03). The proportion of patients with optimal functional PCI result (FFR &amp;gt; 0.9) did not differ significantly between two groups (16.7% in IVUS group vs 15% in FFR group), however, there was a lower incidence of residual myocardial ischemia in the IVUS optimization group: 0% of patients with post-PCI FFR ≤ 0.8 in the IVUS group vs 13.3% in the FFR group (p=0.002). The trend for smaller ischemia prevalence in IVUS optimization strategy continued during follow-up: there were 4.5% of patients with target vessel related myocardial ischemia in IVUS group and 18.0% in FFR group (p=0.015). Conclusion(s) In the treatment of long LAD lesions IVUS PCI optimization strategy was associated with lower incidence of poor functional PCI result and smaller ischemia burden at follow-up compared to FFR optimization strategy. The implementation of intravascular imaging should be mandatory in the treatment of long diffuse coronary disease.Figure 1Figure 2

Clinical outcomes of deferred lesions by IVUS versus FFR-guided treatment decision: the FLAVOUR trial substudy

Abstract Background There is limited data regarding the safety of deferral of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) based on intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) findings. Current study sought to compare the prognosis between deferred lesions based on IVUS and FFR (fractional flow reserve)-guided treatment decision. Methods Study population was derived from FLAVOUR trial which is a multinational, open-label, randomized, and non-inferiority trial that compared 2-year clinical outcomes between IVUS and FFR-guided treatment decision using predefined criteria. In both IVUS and FFR groups, vessels were classified into deferred or revascularized vessels, and patients into those with or without deferred lesion. Vessel-oriented composite outcomes (VOCO) (cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization) in deferred vessels and patient-oriented composite outcomes (POCO) (death, myocardial infarction, or any revascularization) in patients with deferred lesion were compared between IVUS and FFR group. Results A total of 1682 patients and 1820 vessels were analyzed. At 2 years, there is no difference in cumulative incidence of VOCO in deferred vessels between IVUS and FFR groups (3.8% vs. 4.1%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-1.75; P=0.771). The risk of VOCO was comparable between deferred and revascularized vessels following both IVUS (3.8% vs. 3.5%; HR 1.09; 95% CI 0.54-2.19; P=0.813) and FFR-guided treatment decision (4.1% vs. 3.6%; HR 1.14; 95% CI 0.56-2.32; P=0.715). In comparison of POCO in patients with deferred lesion, there was no significant difference between IVUS and FFR groups (6.2% vs. 5.9%; HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.61-1.80; P=0.856). Conclusion In patients with intermediate coronary artery stenosis, deferral of PCI based on IVUS-guided treatment decision showed comparable risk of clinical events with FFR-guided treatment decision.

Discordance between quantitative coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve or intravascular ultrasound: a substudy of the FLAVOUR trial

Abstract Background Discrepancies between quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) are often observed in coronary lesions with intermediate stenosis. Objectives We investigated the impact of physiology- or intracoronary imaging-directed revascularization strategies on clinical outcomes in patients with discordant coronary lesions between QCA and FFR or IVUS. Methods This study was a post hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR study, an investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, open-label, multinational trial performed at 18 sites in Korea and China. In the FLAVOUR study, 200 patients with ≥60% diameter stenosis (DS) deferred percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) according to FFR &amp;gt; 0.8 (n=141) or a minimal lumen area &amp;gt; 3 mm2 or 3-4 mm2 with a plaque burden &amp;lt;70% on IVUS whereas 351 patients with &amp;lt;60% DS performed PCI according to positive FFR (n=118) or positive IVUS (n=233) results. The primary outcome was a patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO), a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization. Results The incidence of discordance was 28.1% in the FFR group and 32.4% in the IVUS group. At 24 months, among patients with ≥60% DS, the incidence of POCO was similar between FFR-guided and IVUS-guided deferral strategies (4.4% vs. 3.4%, p=0.757). Among patients with &amp;lt;60% DS, FFR-directed or IVUS-directed PCI did not differ in the POCO incidence (5.2% vs. 2.6%, p=0.207). However, FFR-guided PCI showed a higher incidence of periprocedural myocardial infarction than IVUS-guided PCI in &amp;lt;60% DS lesions (2.6% vs. 0.0%, p=0.014). Conclusions In patients with discordant intermediate stenosis between QCA and FFR or IVUS, physiology- and imaging-directed revascularization strategies are comparable concerning POCO at 24 months.

Abstract 14832: Comparative Effectiveness of Intravascular Ultrasound versus Angiography in Abdominal and Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: The effectiveness of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) with angiography compared with angiography guidance alone in the treatment of aortic conditions remains unclear. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the evidence for IVUS use during thoracic (TEVAR) and abdominal (EVAR) endovascular aortic repair. Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases was conducted to identify studies comparing outcomes of patients undergoing TEVAR/EVAR with and without IVUS. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality during follow-up. Secondary outcomes included contrast volume, fluoroscopy time, perioperative mortality, and reinterventions during follow-up. Continuous variables, risk ratios (RRs), and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted from each study. Pooled analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Results: A total of 6,888 patients (n=4,226 IVUS and n=2,662 non-IVUS) from nine observational studies were included in the meta-analysis. The follow-up period ranged from 9 months to 25 months. The IVUS group exhibited a reduction in contrast agent volume (weighted mean difference (WMD) [95% CI] = -34.65 mL [-54.73, -14.57]) and fluoroscopy time (WMD [95% CI] = -6.13 min [-11.10, -1.15]) ( Figure 1A&amp;B ). Perioperative mortality was comparable between both groups (RR [95% CI] = 0.67 [0.40-1.12], respectively). Reintervention rates and all-cause mortality during the follow-up period were similar between the two groups (HR [95% CI] = 0.80 [0.33-1.97], HR [95% CI] = 0.75 [0.47-1.18], respectively) ( Figure 1C ). Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence that the use of IVUS enables safe and effective deployment of TEVAR and EVAR with reduced contrast agent usage and shorter fluoroscopy duration. These findings support the potential of IVUS as a valuable tool in endovascular aortic interventions.

Enhancing Coronary Intervention Outcomes Using Intravascular Ultrasound: Analysis of Long-Term Benefits in a Japanese Multicenter Registry

BackgroundAlthough the use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been shown to improve clinical outcomes, its utilization remains inconsistent. We aimed to assess the association between IVUS-guided PCI and long-term outcomes in Japan, where a high proportion of patients undergo IVUS. MethodsWe analyzed 8721 consecutive patients in a multicenter PCI registry. The primary outcome was a composite of death, acute coronary syndrome, and heart failure requiring admission and coronary artery bypass grafting at 2 years after discharge. The secondary outcome was each component of the primary outcome. We used inverse probability-weighted analysis for adjustment. Subgroup analysis was conducted on patients with complex coronary anatomy (eg, those with bifurcation, chronic total occlusion, type C lesion, left main and those who underwent rotational atherectomy). ResultsOverall, 83.8% of patients underwent IVUS-guided PCI (mean age, 68.3 ± 11.3 years). After adjustments, the IVUS group had significantly lower rates of death and coronary bypass compared to no IVUS group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55-0.96; and HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.98) at 2-year follow-up, although the primary outcome showed only marginal differences (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.71-1.01). In the subgroup analysis of complex coronary anatomy, the use of IVUS was significantly associated with a reduced risk of the primary outcome (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93) as well as death, coronary bypass, and heart failure. ConclusionsIVUS was frequently utilized in our registry and demonstrated potential benefit in reducing mortality and need for coronary bypass surgery, particularly in patients with complex coronary anatomy.

Outcomes With Intravascular Ultrasound and Optical Coherence Tomography Guidance in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Intracoronary imaging has become an important tool in the treatment of complex lesions with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This retrospective cohort study identified 1,118,475 patients with PCI from the Nationwide Readmissions Database from 2017 to 2019. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) were identified with appropriate International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events. The secondary outcomes include net adverse clinical events (NACEs), all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) readmission, admission for stroke, and emergency revascularization. The multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression was used to adjust for demographic and co-morbid confounders. Of 1,118,475 PCIs, 86,140 (7.7%) used IVUS guidance and 5,617 (0.5%) used OCT guidance. The median follow-up time was 184days. The primary outcome of major adverse cardiac events was significantly lower for the IVUS (6.5% vs 7.6%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86 to 0.91, p <0.001) and OCT (4.4% vs 7.6%; HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.79, p <0.001) groups. IVUS was associated with significantly lower rates of NACEs (8.4% vs 9.4%; HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.94, p <0.001), all-cause mortality (3.5% vs 4.3%; HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.88, p <0.001), readmission for MI (2.7% vs 3.0%; HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.99, p=0.012), and admission for stroke (0.5% vs 0.6%; HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.95, p=0.002). OCT was associated with significantly lower rates of NACEs (6.6% vs 9.4%; HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.89, p <0.001) and all-cause mortality (1.8% vs 4.3%; HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.63, p <0.001). Emergency revascularization was not significantly different with IVUS guidance. Readmission for MI, stroke, and emergency revascularization were not significantly different with OCT guidance. A subgroup analysis of patients with ST-elevation MI and non-ST-elevation MI showed similar results. In conclusion, the use of IVUS and OCT guidance with PCI were associated with significantly lower rates of morbidity and mortality in real-world practice.

Intravascular Ultrasound vs. Fractional Flow Reserve for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Optimization in Long Coronary Artery Lesions.

intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) have both been shown to be superior to angiography in optimizing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, there is still a lack of comparative studies between PCI optimization using physiology and intravascular imaging head-to-head. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of FFR and IVUS PCI optimization strategies on the functional PCI result (assessed with FFR) immediately post-PCI and at 9-12 months after the treatment of long coronary lesions. This was a single-center study comparing post-PCI FFR between two different PCI optimization strategies (FFR and IVUS). The study included 154 patients who had hemodynamically significant long lesions, necessitating a stent length of 30 mm or more. The procedural outcomes were functional PCI result immediately post-PCI and at 9-12 months after treatment. Clinical outcomes included target vessel failure (TVF) and functional target vessel restenosis rate during follow-up. Baseline clinical characteristics and FFR (0.65 [0.55-0.71]) did not differ significantly between the two groups and the left anterior descending artery was treated in 82% of cases. The FFR optimization strategy resulted in a significantly shorter stented segment (49 mm vs. 63 mm, p = 0.001) compared to the IVUS optimization strategy. Although the rates of optimal functional PCI result (FFR > 0.9) did not significantly differ between the FFR and IVUS optimization strategies, a proportion of patients in the FFR group (12%) experienced poor post-PCI functional outcome with FFR values ≤ 0.8, which was not observed in the IVUS group. At the 9-12 month follow-up, 20% of patients in the FFR group had target-vessel-related myocardial ischemia, compared to 6% in the IVUS group. The rates of TVF and functional target vessel restenosis during follow-up were also numerically higher in the FFR optimization group. The use of FFR PCI optimization strategy in the treatment of long coronary artery lesions is associated with a higher incidence of poor functional PCI result and larger myocardial ischemia burden at follow-up compared to the IVUS optimization strategy. However, this discrepancy did not translate into a statistically significant difference in clinical outcomes. This study highlights the importance of using IVUS to optimize long lesions functional PCI outcomes.

Optical Coherence Tomography-Guided or Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The OCTIVUS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT) showed superior clinical outcomes compared with angiography-guided PCI. However, the comparative effectiveness of OCT-guided and IVUS-guided PCI regarding clinical outcomes is unknown. In this prospective, multicenter, open-label, pragmatic trial, we randomly assigned 2008 patients with significant coronary artery lesions undergoing PCI in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either an OCT-guided or IVUS-guided PCI. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiac causes, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization at 1 year, which was powered for noninferiority of the OCT group compared with the IVUS group. Safety outcomes were also assessed. At 1 year, primary end point events occurred in 25 of 1005 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 2.5%) in the OCT group and in 31 of 1003 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 3.1%) in the IVUS group (absolute difference, -0.6 percentage points; upper boundary of one-sided 97.5% CI, 0.97 percentage points; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy was similar (14 patients [1.4%] in the OCT group versus 15 patients [1.5%] in the IVUS group; P=0.85). The incidence of major procedural complications was lower in the OCT group than in the IVUS group (22 [2.2%] versus 37 [3.7%]; P=0.047), although imaging procedure-related complications were not observed. In patients with significant coronary artery lesions, OCT-guided PCI was noninferior to IVUS-guided PCI with respect to the incidence of a composite of death from cardiac causes, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization at 1 year. The selected study population and lower-than-expected event rates should be considered in interpreting the trial. URL: https://www. gov; Unique number: NCT03394079.

Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance During Peripheral Vascular Interventions: Long-term Clinical Outcomes and Costs From the Japanese Perspective.

The value of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance during peripheral vascular revascularization procedures is incompletely understood. Moreover, data on long-term clinical outcomes and costs are limited. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes and costs between IVUS and contrast angiography alone in patients undergoing peripheral revascularization procedures in Japan. This retrospective comparative analysis was performed using the Japanese Medical Data Vision insurance claims database. All patients undergoing revascularization for peripheral artery disease (PAD) between April 2009 and July 2019 were included. Patients were followed until July 2020, death, or a subsequent revascularization procedure for PAD. Two patient groups were compared: one undergoing IVUS imaging or the other contrast angiography alone. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac and limb events, including all-cause-mortality, endovascular thrombolysis, subsequent revascularization procedures for PAD, stroke, acute myocardial infarction, and major amputations. Total health care costs were documented over the follow-up and compared between groups, using a bootstrap method. The study included 3956 patients in the IVUS group and 5889 in the angiography alone group. Intravascular ultrasound was significantly associated with reduced risk of a subsequent revascularization procedure (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.25 [0.22-0.28]) and major adverse cardiac and limb events (0.69 [0.65-0.73]). The total costs were significantly lower in the IVUS group, with a mean cost saving over follow-up of $18 173 [$7 695-$28 595] per patient. The use of IVUS during peripheral revascularization provides superior long-term clinical outcomes at lower costs compared with contrast angiography alone, warranting wider adoption and fewer barriers to IVUS reimbursement for patients with PAD undergoing routine revascularization. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance during peripheral vascular revascularization has been introduced to improve the precision of the procedure. However, questions over the benefit of IVUS in terms of long-term clinical outcome and over cost have limited its use in everyday clinical practice. This study, performed in a Japanese health insurance claims database, demonstrates that use of IVUS provides a superior clinical outcome over the long term at a lower cost compared to angiography alone. These findings should encourage clinicians to use IVUS in routine peripheral vascular revascularization procedures and encourage providers to reduce barriers to use.

IVUS-guided versus OCT-guided PCI among patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome

BackgroundIntravascular imaging modalities such as intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and, more recently, optical coherence tomography (OCT) improved the visualization of coronary anatomy and plaque pathology. We aimed to compare the procedural and short-term outcomes between IVUS-guided and OCT-guided percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).MethodsIn the present retrospective study, we reviewed the data of 50 patients who had IVUS-guided PCI and 50 patients who had OCT-guided PCI for ACS between January 2020 and June 2021. Intravascular imaging was done before and after stenting. Both groups were compared in terms of minimal luminal area (MLA), stent dimensions, final minimal stent area (MSA) and stent expansion as well as negative angiographic outcomes. Patients were followed for six months to record major adverse cardiac events (MACE).ResultsThe patients’ mean age was 57 ± 13 years with male predominance (78%). The radiation time and dose were significantly higher among IVUS group. Pre-stenting MLA was significantly higher in IVUS group (2.63 mm vs. 2.22 mm in OCT, P = 0.013). Stent expansion was significantly higher among OCT group (97% vs. 93% in IVUS group, P = 0.001) with no significant difference between both groups regarding MSA [mm2] (8.88 ± 2.87 in IVUS vs. 8.1 ± 2.76 in OCT, P = 0.169). No significant difference between both groups was noted regarding contrast volume, edge dissection, tissue prolapse, and no reflow. The rates of six-month MACE were significantly higher in the IVUS group.ConclusionsOCT-guided PCI in ACS is safe and is associated with similar MSA to that of IVUS-guided PCI. Future randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.Graphical

Comparison of angiography and ultrasound for femoropopliteal angioplasty: decision-making and 12-month outcomes.

This study aimed to investigate whether intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) combined with angiography during percutaneous transluminal angioplasty impacts treatment strategies and the 12-month patency of the femoropopliteal artery, compared to angiography alone. This retrospective, single-center study enrolled 137 patients who underwent a femoropopliteal endovascular intervention between February 2020 and May 2021. Among these interventions, 43 were guided by IVUS combined with angiography and the remaining 94 were guided by angiography only. Treatment strategies and 12-month patency were analyzed in both groups. Multivariable analysis was performed to clarify the predictors of restenosis within 12 months. Primary patency at 12 months was significantly higher in the IVUS group than in the angiography group (56.4% vs. 76.7%, P=0.047). The reference diameter on IVUS images was greater than that on angiography images. Therefore, the IVUS group presented a higher balloon-to-vessel ratio [1.0 (0.97, 1.01) vs. 1.06 (1.0.1.25)]. More adjunctive stents were required in the angiography group. However, more dissections were performed in the IVUS group, with no difference in flow-limiting dissections between groups. Target disease length (odds ratio 1.02, P=0.021) and balloon-to-vessel ratio (odds ratio 0.01, P=0.021) were independent predictors of restenosis. Compared with angiography guidance alone, IVUS guidance for femoropopliteal artery-related treatment can significantly increase primary patency. This finding may be explained by the selection of larger balloons in IVUS and the resulting sufficient plaque compression and elastic membrane stretch. Moreover, IVUS was shown to detect more non-flow-limiting dissections than angiography.