Go to main contents Go to main menus

사용자별 맞춤메뉴

자주찾는 메뉴

추가하기
닫기

Research Articles

contents area

detail content area

Intravascular modality-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in ...
  • Date2021-02-23 17:26
  • Update2021-02-23 17:26
  • CountersignatureDivision of Research Planning
  • Tel043-719-8033

Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 2020.95, 696-703, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.28359


Intravascular modality-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction

Namkyun Kim, Jang Hoon Lee; Se Yong Jang; Myung Hwan Bae; Dong Heon Yang; Hun Sik Park; Yongkeun Cho; Myung Ho Jeong; Jong-Seon Park; Hyo-Soo Kim; Seung-Ho Hur; In-Whan Seong; Myeong-Chan Cho; Chong-Jin Kim; Shung Chull Chae


Abstract

    Background: Few data are available for current usage patterns of intravascular modalities such as intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), optical coherence tomography (OCT), and fractional flow reserve (FFR) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Moreover, patient and procedural-based outcomes related to intravascular modality guidance compared to angiography guidance have not been fully investigated yet.
    Methods: We examined 11,731 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from the Korea AMI Registry-National Institute of Health database. Patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE) was defined as all-cause death, any infarction, and any revascularization. Device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) was defined as cardiac death, target-vessel reinfarction, and target-lesion revascularization.
    Results: Overall, intravascular modalities were utilized in 2,659 (22.7%) patients including 2,333 (19.9%) IVUS, 277 (2.4%) OCT, and 157 (1.3%) FFR. In the unmatched cohort, POCE (5.4 vs. 8.5%; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.93; p = .008) and DOCE (4.6 vs. 7.4%; adjusted HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.61-0.97; p = .028) were significantly lower in intravascular modality-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI. In the propensity-score-matched cohorts, POCE (5.9 vs. 7.7%; HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.60-0.92; p = .006) and DOCE (5.0 vs. 6.8%; HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.57-0.90; p = .004) were significantly lower in intravascular modality guidance compared with angiography guidance. The difference was mainly driven by reduced all-cause mortality (4.4 vs. 7.0%; p < .001) and cardiac mortality (3.3 vs. 5.2%; p < .001).
    Conclusion: In this large-scale AMI registry, intravascular modality guidance was associated with an improving clinical outcome in selected high-risk patients.



  • 본 연구는 질병관리본부 연구개발과제연구비를 지원받아 수행되었습니다.
  • This research was supported by a fund by Research of Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


This public work may be used under the terms of the public interest source This public work may be used under the terms of the public interest source
TOP