Journal of Interventional Cardiology · 2016 · 27 citations · 28 references
MedicineCardiologySurgeryCardiothoracic SurgeryInterventional CardiologyUltrasonographyAcute Coronary Syndrome InterventionInterventional UltrasonographyIntravascular ImagingOptical Coherence TomographyPercutaneous Coronary InterventionStent PlacementGuided Coronary InterventionImage-guided Percutaneous Coronary InterventionIntracoronary Imaging GuidanceIntravascular Imaging GuidanceLumen Area MeasurementStent Apposition AssessmentStent Patency AssessmentUltrasound-guided Stent Placement
OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes and rates of optimal stent placement between optical coherence tomography (OCT) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: Unlike IVUS-guided PCI, rates of clinical outcomes and optimal stent placement have not been well characterized for OCT-guided PCI. METHODS: The study enrolled 290 patients who underwent implantation of a second generation drug eluting stent under OCT (122 patients) or IVUS (168 patients) guidance. The two groups were compared after adjusting for baseline differences using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) (114 patients in each group). Optimal stent placement was defined as achieving an adequate lumen (optimal minimum stent area [MSA > 4.85 mm(2) for OCT, >5 mm(2) for IVUS] or a final MSA ≥ 90% of the distal reference lumen area, without edge dissection, incomplete stent apposition, or tissue prolapse), or otherwise performing additional interventions to address suboptimal post-stenting OCT or IVUS findings. The primary endpoint was one-year cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization). Definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) rates were evaluated. RESULTS: In adjusted comparisons between OCT and IVUS groups, there was no significant difference in rates of MACE (3.5% vs. 3.5%, P = 1.000) and ST (0% vs. 0.9%, P = 1.000) at 1 year, optimal stent placement (89.5% vs. 92.1%, P = 0.492), and further intervention (7.9% vs.13.2%, P = 0.234), despite OCT significantly more frequently detecting tissue prolapse (97.4% vs. 47.4%, P < 0.001), and numerically more edge dissection (10.5% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.078) or incomplete stent apposition (48.2% vs. 36.8%, P = 0.082). CONCLUSIONS: OCT guidance showed comparable results to IVUS in mid-term clinical outcomes, suggesting that OCT can be an alternative tool for stent placement optimization.
28
Clinical End Points in Coronary Stent Trials
Donald E. Cutlip, Stephan Windecker, Roxana Mehran et al. · Circulation · 2007 · 5.4K citations
<b>MatchIt</b>: Nonparametric Preprocessing for Parametric Causal Inference
Daniel E. Ho, Kosuke Imai, Gary King et al. · Journal of Statistical Software · 2011 · 4.4K citations · Full text
Third universal definition of myocardial infarction
Kristian Thygesen, Burkert Pieske, Steven P. Schulman et al. · European Heart Journal · 2012 · 3.1K citations
Guillermo J. Tearney, Evelyn Regar, Takashi Akasaka et al. · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2012 · 1.8K citations · Full text