Why the study?
The study was conducted to evaluate the clinical results of intravascular ultrasound-guided intervention for calcified coronary artery lesions.
Does IVUS-guided intervention for calcified coronary artery lesions compared to non-calcified lesions result in different MACE rates?
Observational (n=134)
No
Does IVUS-guided intervention for calcified coronary artery lesions compared to non-calcified lesions result in different MACE rates?
Patients with calcified coronary lesions undergoing IVUS-guided intervention have more comorbidities and numerically higher MACE compared to non-calcified lesions, though not statistically significant.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Calcified lesions showed higher MACE despite IVUS guidance; leaves open whether refined protocols or adjuncts improve outcomes in this high-risk group.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical results of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided intervention for calcified coronary artery lesions. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study. Place and Duration of the Study: Department of Medicine, The Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, from January 2013 to January 2020. METHODOLOGY: A cohort of 134 consecutive patients who underwent intravascular ultrasonography-guided assessment of coronary arteries were included. Patients were divided into two groups: those with coronary artery calcification (CAC, n=77) and those without (non-CAC, n=57). The two groups were compared for their clinical characteristics, management, in-hospital events, follow-up, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). RESULTS: The mean follow-up duration was 40.3 ± 30.1 months. Most of the patients were male (n=97, 72.3%), and the mean age was 63.1 ± 12.9 years. In the CAC group, age was the most common risk factor, followed by dyslipidaemia (n=68, 88%), hypertension (n=64, 83%), and Diabetes mellitus (n=44, 57%). CAC group patients were more commonly presented with acute coronary syndrome (n=59, 76.6%), had prior PCI (n=40, 52%), had more LM disease (n=34, 44%, p=0.005), and a significant number of prior stent-ISR (n=27, 35%, p=0.024). Those who had CAC had higher MACE. CONCLUSION: Patients with CAC had more co-morbidities and commonly presented with acute coronary syndrome. MACEs frequency was recorded higher in the CAC group although the results were not statistically significant.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rahman et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Coronary artery calcification (n=134). Coronary artery calcification vs. No coronary artery calcification (non-CAC) was evaluated on Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: