Affordable Access

Publisher Website

Meta-Analysis of Randomized Studies Comparing Intravascular Ultrasound Versus Angiographic Guidance of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Pre–Drug-Eluting Stent Era

The American Journal of Cardiology
Publication Date
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.09.030
  • Design


We conducted a formal meta-analysis of peer-reviewed, published, randomized studies comparing intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guidance and angiographic-guided bare metal stent implantation. A total of 8 studies were identified. Because the Balloon Equivalent to Stent (BEST) study was a noninferiority trial designed to compare 2 very different percutaneous coronary intervention strategies—IVUS-guided aggressive balloon angioplasty (with bail-out stenting) and angiographic-guided deliberate bare metal stent implantation—it was eliminated. An unadjusted random-effects meta-analysis was used to compare the IVUS-guided and non–IVUS-guided stenting in the 7 remaining studies. A total of 2,193 patients were randomized in 5 multicenter and 2 single-center studies. IVUS guidance was associated with a significantly larger postprocedure angiographic minimum lumen diameter. The mean difference was 0.12 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06 to 0.18, p <0.0001). IVUS guidance was also associated with a significantly lower rate of 6-month angiographic restenosis (22% vs 29%, odds ratio 0.64, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.96, p = 0.02), a significant reduction in the revascularization rate (13% vs 18%, odds ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.91, p = 0.004), and overall major adverse cardiac events (19% vs. 23%, odds ratio 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.97, p = 0.03). However, no significant effect was seen for myocardial infarction (p = 0.51) or mortality (p = 0.18). In conclusion, IVUS guidance for bare metal stent implantation improved the acute procedural results (angiographic minimum lumen diameter) and thereby reduced angiographic restenosis and repeat revascularization and major adverse cardiac events, with a neutral effect on death and myocardial infarction during a follow-up period of 6 months to 2.5 years.

There are no comments yet on this publication. Be the first to share your thoughts.