Intravascular ultrasound-guided versus coronary angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Frederik T.W. Groenland, Tara Neleman, Hala Kakar, Alessandra Scoccia, Annemieke C. Ziedses des Plantes, Pascal R.D. Clephas, Sraman Chatterjee, Mahova Zhu, Wijnand K. den Dekker, Roberto Diletti, Felix Zijlstra, Karim D. Mahmoud, Nicolas M. Van Mieghem, Joost Daemen*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlePopular

1 Citation (Scopus)
5 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) can overcome the intrinsic limitations of coronary angiography for lesion assessment and stenting. IVUS improves outcomes of patients presenting with stable or complex coronary artery disease, but dedicated data on the impact of IVUS-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains scarce. Methods: We systematically searched Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar for studies that compared clinical outcomes for IVUS- versus angio-guided PCI in patients with AMI. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality and the secondary endpoint major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model was used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Nine studies (8 observational, 1 RCT) with a total of 838.902 patients (796.953 angio-guided PCI, 41.949 IVUS-guided PCI) were included. In patients with AMI, IVUS-guided PCI was associated with a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (pooled RR: 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59–0.82; p < 0.01), MACE (pooled RR: 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74–0.99; p = 0.04) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) (pooled RR: 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73–0.95; p < 0.01). In the subset of patients presenting with ST-segment elevation, IVUS-guided PCI remained associated with a reduced risk for both all-cause mortality (pooled RR: 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66–0.95, p = 0.01) and MACE (pooled RR: 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74–0.99, p = 0.04). Conclusions: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis comparing IVUS- versus angio-guided PCI in patients with AMI, showing a beneficial effect of IVUS-guided PCI on all-cause mortality, MACE and TVR. Results of ongoing dedicated prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)35-42
Number of pages8
JournalInternational Journal of Cardiology
Volume353
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 15 Jan 2022

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Joost Daemen received institutional grant / research support from Abbott Vascular , ACIST Medical , Astra Zeneca , Boston Scientific , Medtronic , Microport , Pie Medical , and ReCor Medical . Nicolas Van Mieghem received institutional research grant support from Abbott Vascular , Abiomed , Boston Scientific , Daiichi-Sankyo , Edward Lifesciences , Medtronic , and PulseCath . The remaining authors report to have no disclosures.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Author(s)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Intravascular ultrasound-guided versus coronary angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this