000 | 03242nam a22003257a 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
008 | 170411s20162016 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
022 | _a0167-5273 | ||
040 | _aOvid MEDLINE(R) | ||
099 | _a27153138 | ||
245 | _aIntravascular ultrasound-guided drug-eluting stent implantation: An updated meta-analysis of randomized control trials and observational studies. [Review] | ||
251 | _aInternational Journal of Cardiology. 216:133-9, 2016 Aug 01 | ||
252 | _aInt J Cardiol. 216:133-9, 2016 Aug 01 | ||
253 | _aInternational journal of cardiologyMH - AgedMH - *Cardiovascular Diseases/th [Therapy]MH - Drug-Eluting StentsMH - FemaleMH - HumansMH - MaleMH - Middle AgedMH - Observational Studies as TopicMH - Odds RatioMH - *Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/is [Instrumentation]MH - Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicMH - Treatment OutcomeMH - *Ultrasonography, Interventional/mt [Methods] | ||
260 | _c2016 | ||
260 | _fFY2017 | ||
266 | _d2017-05-24 | ||
520 | _aCopyright (c) 2016. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. | ||
520 | _aThe use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance for drug-eluting stent (DES) optimization is limited by the number of adequately powered randomized control trials (RCTs). We performed an updated meta-analysis, including data from recently published RCTs and observational studies, by reviewing the literature in Medline and the Cochrane Library to identify studies that compared clinical outcomes between IVUS-guided and angiography-guided DES implantation from January 1995 to January 2016. This meta-analysis included 25 eligible studies, including 31,283 patients, of whom 3192 patients were enrolled in 7 RCTs. In an analysis of all 25 studies, the summary results for all the events analyzed were significantly in favor of IVUS-guided DES implantation [major adverse cardiac events (MACE, odds ratio [OR] 0.76, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.70-0.82, P<0.001); death (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.54-0.72, P<0.001); myocardial infarction (OR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.56-0.80, P<0.001); stent thrombosis (OR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.47-0.73, P<0.001); target lesion revascularization (TLR, OR 0.77, 95% CI: 0.67-0.89, P=0.005); target vessel revascularization (TVR, OR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.76-0.95, P<0.001)]. However, in a separate analysis of RCTs, a favorable result for IVUS-guided DES implantation was found only for MACE (OR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.52-0.84, P=0.001), TLR (OR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.43-0.87, P=0.006), and TVR (OR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.41-0.90, P=0.013). IVUS-guided percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with better overall clinical outcomes than angiography-guided DES implantation. However, in a solely RCT meta-analysis, this benefit was mainly driven by reduced rates of revascularizations. | ||
546 | _aEnglish | ||
651 | _aMedStar Heart & Vascular Institute | ||
657 | _aJournal Article | ||
657 | _aReview | ||
700 | _aGarcia-Garcia, Hector M | ||
700 | _aLee, Sang Yeub | ||
700 | _aSteinvil, Arie | ||
700 | _aWaksman, Ron | ||
790 | _aChen SL, Garcia-Garcia HM, Lee SY, Pang S, Steinvil A, Waksman R, Zhang YJ | ||
856 |
_uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.04.154 _zhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.04.154 |
||
942 |
_cART _dArticle |
||
999 |
_c2562 _d2562 |