OBJECTIVES: To compare long-term clinical outcomes between intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided and angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in a large "real world" registry. BACKGROUND: The impact of IVUS-guided PCI on clinical outcomes remains unclear. METHODS: Between January 1998 and February 2006, 8,371 patients who underwent IVUS- (n = 4,627) or angiography- (n = 3,744) guided PCI were consecutively enrolled. Three-year clinical outcomes were compared after adjustment for inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting (IPTW) in the overall population and in separate populations according to stent type. RESULTS: A crude analysis of the overall population showed that the 3-year mortality rate was significantly lower in the IVUS-guided group than in the angiography-guided group (96.4% ± 0.3% vs. 93.6% ± 0.4%, log-rank P < 0.001). When adjusted by IPTW, patients undergoing IVUS-guided PCI remained at lower risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.627; 95% CI 0.50-0.79, P < 0.001). Similarly, in the drug-eluting stent (DES) population, the 3-year risk of mortality was significantly lower in patients undergoing IVUS-guided PCI (HR 0.46; 95% CI 0.33-0.66, P < 0.001). In contrast, IVUS-guided PCI did not reduce the risk of mortality in the bare metal stent population (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.60-1.10, P = 0.185). However, the risks of myocardial infarction (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.63-1.44, P = 0.810), target vessel revascularization (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.86-1.15, P = 0.944), and stent thrombosis (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.53-1.07, P = 0.109) were not associated with IVUS guidance. CONCLUSIONS: IVUS-guided PCI may reduce long-term mortality when compared with conventional angiography-guided PCI. This may encourage the routine use of IVUS for PCI in patients undergoing DES implantation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hur et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: