Key result
IVUS evaluation during primary PCI for STEMI yielded a significantly larger mean stent diameter (3.5 mm) compared to angiographic assessment alone (2.94 mm and 3.01 mm; P<0.001).
Why the study?
There is a paucity of data regarding the impact of IVUS on stenting patterns during primary PCI for STEMI.
Does routine intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) evaluation change the stenting strategy (stent diameter, length, and number) compared to angiographic assessment alone in patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI?
Observational (n=62)
Does routine intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) evaluation change the stenting strategy (stent diameter, length, and number) compared to angiographic assessment alone in patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI?
p-value: p=<0.001
Routine IVUS evaluation during primary PCI for STEMI leads to the selection of significantly larger and longer stents compared to angiographic assessment alone.
Challenges angiographic stent sizing in STEMI PCI; extends randomized IVUS evidence to primary interventions.
Background Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) provides better assessment of vessel size, lesion length and plaque characteristics. There is paucity of data regarding the impact of IVUS on stenting pattern during primary percutaneous intervention (PCI) for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).Methods We included patients with STEMI undergoing IVUS-guided primary PCI. Diagnostic angiograms were analysed by two different operators who were not part of procedure. They were asked to formulate a treatment plan which included choice of stent diameters, length and number of stents based on angiographic assessment alone. The data were then compared with actual metrics derived from IVUS evaluation.Results Sixty-two patients were included. Left anterior descending artery was involved in 38/62(61.3%) cases. Mean stent diameters assessed by angiogram were 2.94 ± 0.4 mm and 3.01 ± 0.32 mm by cardiologist 1 and 2, respectively. IVUS-derived mean stent diameter was 3.5 ± 0.65 mm (p < 0.001). Mean stent length was 42.29 ± 19.29 mm by IVUS evaluation; while angiographically assessed values were 33.53 ± 11.53 (cardiologist 1) and 35.24 ± 12.97 mm (cardiologist 2) with a mean difference of 8.76 mm and 7.05 mm respectively (p < 0.001). Mean number of stents by IVUS evaluation was 1.42 ± 0.56, while by angiographic evaluation were 1.11 ± 0.37 and 1.13 ± 0.34 respectively (p < 0.001).Conclusions There was significant difference between IVUS derived and angiographically assessed culprit vessel metrics in patients undergoing primary PCI. Clinical outcomes of this discrepancy need further studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Narayanan et al. (2022) conducted an observational in ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n=62). Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) evaluation vs. Angiographic assessment alone was evaluated on Stent diameter, length, and number of stents (p=<0.001). IVUS evaluation during primary PCI for STEMI yielded a significantly larger mean stent diameter (3.5 mm) compared to angiographic assessment alone (2.94 mm and 3.01 mm; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: