Clinical utility of intravascular ultrasonography-guided therapy in a small-vessel coronary lesion associated with Type 2 diabetes mellitus

Intravascular imaging-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has become one of the most commonly performed interventional life-saving procedures worldwide. Intravascular Imaging (intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT)) have initially evolved to guide PCI compared with angiography. However, this technology is not universally employed in all PCI procedures, and there is ongoing controversy regarding its additional benefits to patient outcomes. We aim to estimate the efficacy and safety of imaging modalities during PCI, allowing pre-, per, and post-intervention assessment of coronary vascularization.

METHODS

A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which were retrieved from PubMed, WOS, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and CENTRAL through September 2023. We used R, version 4.2.0. Effect sizes will be presented as odds ratios with accompanying 95% credible intervals.

PROSPERO ID

CRD42024507821.

RESULTS

Our study, encompassing 36 RCTs with a total of 17,572 patients, revelead that compared to conventional angiography, IVUS significantly reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (OR: 0.71 [95% CrI: 0.56 to 0.87]) but not OCT (OR: 0.91 [95% CrI: 0.62 to 1.39]), IVUS and OCT significantly reduced the risk of cardiac death (OR: 0.50 [95% CrI: 0.33 to 0.76]) and (OR: 0.55 [95% CrI: 0.31 to 0.98]), respectively, IVUS significantly reduced the risk of target vessel-related revascularization (OR: 0.60 [95% CrI: 0.48 to 0.75]) but not OCT (OR: 0.86 [95% CrI: 0.60 to 1.19]), IVUS and OCT significantly reduced the risk of stent thrombosis (OR: 0.50 [95% CrI: 0.28 to 0.92]) and (OR: 0.48 [95% CrI: 0.22 to 0.98]), respectively, IVUS significantly reduced the risk of re-stenosis (OR: 0.65 [95% CrI: 0.46 to 0.88]) but not OCT (OR: 0.55 [95% CrI: 0.15 to 1.99]), neither IVUS (OR: 0.97 [95% CrI: 0.71 to 1.38]) nor OCT (OR: 0.75 [95% CrI: 0.49 to 1.22]) were associated with statistically significant reductions in all-cause mortality, neither IVUS (OR: 0.70 [95% CrI: 0.45 to 1.32]) nor OCT (OR: 0.81 [95% CrI: 0.47 to 1.59]) were associated with statistically significant reductions in target vessel failure, neither IVUS (OR: 0.88 [95% CrI: 0.43 to 2.44]) nor OCT (OR: 0.81 [95% CrI: 0.37 to 2.04]) were associated with statistically significant reductions in target lesion failure, and neither IVUS (OR: 0.82 [95% CrI: 0.60 to 1.06]) nor OCT (OR: 0.84 [95% CrI: 0.59 to 1.19]) were associated with statistically significant reductions in myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSION

Intravascular imaging-guided, including IVUS and OCT, improved the postinterventional outcomes of PCI, notably suggesting their advantage over traditional angiography with no significant difference between IVUS and OCT.

Current status of percutaneous coronary interventions in diabetics with multivessel disease - is it time to challenge FREEDOM?

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and coronary artery disease (CAD) are the leading causes of death in the world. Over the last two decades, clinical trials have indicated that DM patients with CAD have poorer cardiac outcomes than non-diabetic patients with CAD. The pivotal findings of the FREEDOM trial greatly impacted the way clinicians approached revascularisation in diabetic patients with multivessel disease (MVD). However, since the publication of the FREEDOM trial, much has changed both in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) technology, as well as in the management of diabetes. This review provides insights into advancements in stent technology, enhanced patient management strategies, improved clinical outcomes with newer hypoglycaemic agents, current approaches to antiplatelet therapy, and advances in lipid management in diabetic patients. The influence of patient-specific factors such as comorbidities and anatomical complexities on treatment decisions in diabetic patients with MVD is also discussed. The ongoing TUXEDO-2 India trial was designed to primarily compare the clinical outcomes of PCI with the new-generation ultrathin-strut Supraflex Cruz stent, compared to the second-generation XIENCE stent in the setting of contemporary optimal medical therapy in Indian diabetic patients with MVD. The secondary objective of this study is to compare clinical outcomes in the combined group from both study arms against a performance goal derived from the coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) arm of the FREEDOM trial (historical cohort). The tertiary objective is to compare the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in diabetic patients with MVD. In view of recent advances in PCI and medical therapy since the FREEDOM trial, now is an appropriate time to revisit the results of CABG versus PCI in diabetic patients with MVD.

Coronary Angiography, Intravascular Ultrasound, and Optical Coherence Tomography for Guiding of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Results from multiple randomized clinical trials comparing outcomes after intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)- and optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with invasive coronary angiography (ICA)-guided PCI as well as a pivotal trial comparing the 2 intravascular imaging (IVI) techniques have provided mixed results.

METHODS

Major electronic databases were searched to identify eligible trials evaluating at least 2 PCI guidance strategies among ICA, IVUS, and OCT. The 2 coprimary outcomes were target lesion revascularization and myocardial infarction. The secondary outcomes included ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, target vessel myocardial infarction, death, cardiac death, target vessel revascularization, stent thrombosis, and major adverse cardiac events. Frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted. The results were replicated by Bayesian random-effects models. Pairwise meta-analyses of the direct components, multiple sensitivity analyses, and pairwise meta-analyses IVI versus ICA were supplemented.

RESULTS

The results from 24 randomized trials (15 489 patients: IVUS versus ICA, 46.4%, 7189 patients; OCT versus ICA, 32.1%, 4976 patients; OCT versus IVUS, 21.4%, 3324 patients) were included in the network meta-analyses. IVUS was associated with reduced target lesion revascularization compared with ICA (odds ratio [OR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.54-0.87]), whereas no significant differences were observed between OCT and ICA (OR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.63-1.09]) and OCT and IVUS (OR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.88-1.66]). Myocardial infarction did not significantly differ between guidance strategies (IVUS versus ICA: OR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.70-1.19]; OCT versus ICA: OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.68-1.11]; OCT versus IVUS: OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.69-1.33]). These results were consistent with the secondary outcomes of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, and sensitivity analyses generally did not reveal inconsistency. OCT was associated with a significant reduction of stent thrombosis compared with ICA (OR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.26-0.92]) but only in the frequentist analysis. Similarly, the results in terms of survival between IVUS or OCT and ICA were uncertain across analyses. A total of 25 randomized trials (17 128 patients) were included in the pairwise meta-analyses IVI versus ICA where IVI guidance was associated with reduced target lesion revascularization, cardiac death, and stent thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

IVI-guided PCI was associated with a reduction in ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization compared with ICA-guided PCI, with the difference most evident for IVUS. In contrast, no significant differences in myocardial infarction were observed between guidance strategies.

Clinical Outcomes and Prevalence of Intravascular Ultrasound Use at a Tertiary Care Hospital in a South Asian Country

Objectives:

Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) plays a pivotal role in the current era of coronary interventions. We aimed to determine the prevalence of IVUS use and clinical outcomes of IVUS-guided percutaneous treatment of coronary arteries lesions in a South Asian country.

Material and Methods:

It is a retrospective observational study, a total of 134 consecutive patients having done IVUS, was enrolled from January 2013 to March 2020 at a single center.

Results:

Out of 134 patients, 97 (72.4%) were male with a mean age of 63.1 ± 12.9 years. The prevalence of IVUS in our center was 3.0%. The most frequent comorbidity observed was dyslipidemia, n = 111 (82.8%). Non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, n = 50 (37.3%), was the common mode of presentation. On coronary angiogram, the left main (LM) disease was found in n = 46 (34.3%), however, single-vessel disease, n = 51 (38.1%), was most commonly noted. IVUS utilization was higher in the left anterior descending, n = 94 (70.1%), followed by LM, n = 46 (34.3%). The LM mean minimal luminal area was 6.0 ± 2.6 mm² and minimal luminal diameter was 4.53 mm ± 0.6 (mean). The coronary artery dissection was noted in n = 15 (11.2%). The mean duration of follow-up in our study was 40.3 ± 30.1 months. Major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were recorded in n = 13 (9.7%), which included heart failure, n = 4 (3%). Cardiovascular death and target vessel revascularization occurred in n = 3 (2.2%).

Conclusion:

IVUS results in a significant decrease in MACE. Our data might support the broader use of IVUS in both developed and in our part of the world.

Small vessel coronary artery disease: How small can we go with myocardial revascularization?

The issue of small coronary artery atherosclerosis represents an intriguing aspect of coronary artery disease, which is related with higher rates of peri- and post-procedural complications and impaired long-term outcome. This problem is further complicated by the unclear definition of small coronary vessel. Recent randomized controlled trials have provided new data on possible novel interventional treatment of small coronary vessels with drug-coated balloons instead of traditional new-generation drug-eluting stent implantation. Also, the conservative management represents a therapeutic option in light of the results of the recent ISCHEMIA trial. The current article provides an overview of the most appropriate definition, interventional management, and prognosis of small coronary artery atherosclerosis.

In-hospital outcomes of angiography versus intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients

Background

We compared the in-hospital complications, outcomes, cost, and length of stay (LOS) between angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided PCI in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in the USA.

Methods

A nationwide inpatient database was queried to identify patients >18 years with STEMI who underwent angiography-guided and IVUS-guided PCI from January 2016 to December 2016. We compared the in-hospital mortality, complications, cost, and LOS between the two groups.

Results

We identified 100,485 patients who underwent angiography-guided PCI and 5,460 patients who underwent IVUS-guided PCI. In-hospital mortality was not statistically different (odds ratio [OR] 0.76, 95% CI 0.46 − 1.22, P = 0.24). Patients who underwent PCI with IVUS were more likely to have coronary artery dissection (OR 4.26, 95% CI 2.34 − 7.7, p = <0.01), and both groups had a similar incidence of acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis. The mean LOS was similar, but the mean total cost was higher in the group that underwent PCI under IVUS guidance.

Conclusions

The in-hospital mortality, hemodialysis, and the use of support devices did not reach a statistical difference between the two groups. However, we observed higher rates of coronary dissection with the use of IVUS in STEMI management.