Clinical impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance in patients of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with drug eluting stent. (14th October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kim, B J; Park, J I; Nam, J H; Lee, J H; Lee, C H; Son, J W; Park, J S; Shin, D G; Kim, U; Her, S H; Chang, K Y; Ahn, T H; Jeong, M H; Rha, S W; Kim, H S
• Is Part Of: European heart journal. Volume 42(2021)Supplement 1
• Publication Date: 2021-10-14
• Subjects: Intracoronary Ultrasound; Cardiology -- Periodicals; Heart -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.12005
• DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab724.2084
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0195-668X

Abstract

Abstract: Background: There is little data about clinical role of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided Percutaneous (PCI) in the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Methods: From 2005 to 2018, a total of 8, 129 patients who underwent PCI with STEMI were investigated from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health database. Patients with Non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, bare metal stent implantation, thrombolytic treatment, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery were excluded. We categorized patients into two groups based on the treatment strategy: IVUS-guided PCI group (n=1, 544), and coronary angiography guidance (CAG)-guided PCI group (n=6, 585). The primary endpoint was composite of major adverse cardiovascular (MACE), including, cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat target vessel revascularization (TVR) and stent thrombosis (ST). Results: IVUS-guided PCI was performed in 19% patients (1544/8129). After propensity score matching, there were no statistically difference in the rate of cardiac death (0% in IVUS vs. 0.26% in CAG, p=0.947), MI (2.01% vs. 2.01%, p=0.408), TVR (1.23% vs. 0.91%, p=0.131), ST (0.32% vs. 0.45%, p=0.828) and composite of MACE at 1 year between two groups (2.01% vs. 2.40%, p=0.843). Independent risk factors for MACE were diabetes mellitus and multi-vessel disease, but not IVUS-guided PCI (HR 1.167, 95% CI, 0.896–1.520, p=0.251). Conclusion: This study suggests that routine usage of IVUS in the setting of STEMI may not be necessary. Large-scaled random study will be needed for further evaluation. FUNDunding Acknowledgement: Type of funding sources: None.