-
European Journal of Vascular and... Oct 2022To assess the efficacy and safety of carotid artery stenting for the treatment of extracranial carotid artery dissection (CAD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy and safety of carotid artery stenting for the treatment of extracranial carotid artery dissection (CAD).
DATA SOURCES
Systematic review using Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library.
REVIEW METHODS
A systematic search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis statement. Data from the eligible studies were extracted and meta-analysed. Primary endpoints included post-operative mortality, cerebrovascular events (CEs), and modified Rankin Score for neurological disability (mRS) at 90 days. Subgroup analyses were performed between stenting of spontaneous and traumatic CAD, primary stenting vs. stenting after failed medical therapy (FMT), and stenting of CAD in the presence of tandem occlusions vs. stenting of isolated extracranial CAD.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies with 1 224 patients were included. Pooled post-operative mortality, CE, and mRS 0 - 2 rates were 1.71% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83 - 2.80), 6.45% (95% CI 2.80 - 11.10), and 76.13% (95% CI 64.15 - 86.50), respectively. The pooled stroke rate was 2.16% (95% CI 0.0 - 6.64). Spontaneous vs. traumatic CAD mortality rates were 3.20% (95% CI 1.80 - 4.88) and 0.00% (95% CI 0.00 - 1.59) while CE rates were 14.26% (95% CI 6.28 - 24.36) and 1.64% (95% CI 0.0 - 6.08). Primary stenting and stenting after FMT mortality rates were 0.63% (95% CI 0.0 - 5.63) and 0.0% (95% CI 0.0 - 2.24), while CE rates were 5.02% (95% CI 0.38 - 12.63) and 3.33% (95% CI 0.12 - 9.03). Mortality rates for tandem occlusions and isolated extracranial CAD were 5.62% (95% CI 1.76 - 10.83) and 0.23% (95% CI 0.0 - 1.88), respectively, while CE rates were 15.28% (95% CI 6.23 - 26.64) and 1.88% (95% CI 0.23 - 4.51). The methodological index for non-randomised studies score was 8.66 (low).
CONCLUSION
Both primary stenting and stenting of spontaneous CAD yielded unfavourable results with respect to stent thrombosis and stroke rates. Conversely, stenting following FMT had acceptable mortality and complication rates corroborating the use of stenting in the setting of CAD as a second line treatment. Due to the low quality of the included studies, definite conclusions cannot be drawn necessitating further research.
Topics: Humans; Stents; Carotid Stenosis; Treatment Outcome; Carotid Arteries; Stroke; Aortic Dissection
PubMed: 35961627
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2022.07.048 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.... Oct 2023Severe acute burn injuries represent a challenge to the reconstructive surgeon. Free flap reconstruction might be required in cases of significant critical structure...
BACKGROUND
Severe acute burn injuries represent a challenge to the reconstructive surgeon. Free flap reconstruction might be required in cases of significant critical structure exposure and soft tissue deficits, when local options are unavailable. This study aimed to determine the free flap complication rate in acute burn patients.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines and registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (CRD42023404478). The following databases were accessed: Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was the free flap failure rate.
RESULTS
The study identified 31 articles for inclusion. A total of 427 patients (83.3% men, 16.7% women) accounting for 454 free flaps were included. The mean patient age was 36.21 [95% confidence interval (CI), 31.25-41.16]. Total free flap loss rate was 9.91% [95% CI, 7.48%-13.02%], and partial flap loss was 4.76% [95% CI, 2.66%-8.39%]. The rate of venous thrombosis was 6.41% [95% CI, 3.90%-10.36%] and arterial thrombosis was 5.08% [95% CI, 3.09%-8.26%]. Acute return to the operating room occurred in 20.63% [16.33%-25.71%] of cases. Stratified by body region, free flaps in the lower extremity had a failure rate of 8.33% [95% CI, 4.39%-15.24%], whereas in the upper extremity, the failure rate was 6.74% [95% CI, 3.95%-11.25%].
CONCLUSION
This study highlights the high risk of free flap complications and failure in acute burn patients.
PubMed: 37817922
DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000005311 -
Animal Models and Experimental Medicine Oct 2022The association between blood eosinophil (EOS) counts and arterial/venous thrombosis is unclear. We aim to explore whether EOS count is a risk factor for thrombosis. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The association between blood eosinophil (EOS) counts and arterial/venous thrombosis is unclear. We aim to explore whether EOS count is a risk factor for thrombosis. We searched several databases and preprint platforms using core terms 'eosinophil', 'myocardial infarction', 'ischemic stroke', and 'venous thromboembolism' (VTE), among others. Studies comparing the odds ratios (ORs) or risk ratios (RRs) of EOSs with the abovementioned diseases were eligible. Overall, 22 studies were included. A high EOS count was associated with acute coronary artery thrombosis events (OR: 1.23, 95% CI: 1.15-1.32), short-term cerebral infarction and mortality (RR: 2.87, 95% CI: 1.49-5.51). The short-term risk of VTE was more common in patients with EOS-related diseases (RR: 6.52, 95% CI: 2.42-17.54). For coronary artery disease, a high EOS count was a protective factor against 6-month to 1-year mortality (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.45-0.69) but was associated with long-term mortality (RR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.25-2.14). Therefore, we conclude that for coronary artery thrombosis, EOS count is not associated with AMI events in general population. It may be associated with NSTEMI and STEMI in CAD patients, but more studies are needed to confirm this. In addition, EOS count is associated with an increased risk of both short- and long-term mortality but is not predictive of the composite endpoints. For cerebral artery thrombosis, EOS count may be associated with cerebral infarction and could lead to an increased risk of poor short-term prognosis. For VTEs, EOS count was a risk factor for some patients, especially those with acute-phase EOS-related diseases.
Topics: Humans; Venous Thromboembolism; Venous Thrombosis; Myocardial Infarction; Coronary Thrombosis; Cerebral Infarction
PubMed: 36205251
DOI: 10.1002/ame2.12277 -
TH Open : Companion Journal To... Jul 2022Venous and arterial thromboses are frequently observed complications in patients with severe novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection who require hospital...
Venous and arterial thromboses are frequently observed complications in patients with severe novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection who require hospital admission. In this study, we evaluate the epidemiology of venous and arterial thrombosis events in ambulatory and postdischarge patients with COVID-19 infection. EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched up to July 21, 2021, in addition to other sources. We included studies that assessed the epidemiology of venous and arterial thrombosis events in ambulatory and postdischarge COVID-19 patients. A total of 16 studies (102,779 patients) were identified. The overall proportion of venous thromboembolic events in all patients, that is, ambulatory and postdischarge, was 0.80% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-1.28), 0.28% (95% CI: 0.07-0.64), and 1.16% (95% CI: 0.69-1.74), respectively. Arterial events occurred in 0.75% (95% CI: 0.27-1.47) of all patients, 1.45% (95% CI: 1.10-1.86) of postdischarge patients, and 0.23% (95% CI: 0.019-0.66) of ambulatory patients. The pooled incidence rate estimates per 1,000 patient-days for VTE events were 0.06 (95% CI: 0.03-0.08) and 0.12 (95% CI: 0.07-0.19) for outpatients and postdischarge, respectively, whereas for arterial events were 0.10 (95% CI: 0-0.30) and 0.26 (95% CI: 0.16-0.37). This study found a low risk of venous and arterial thrombi in ambulatory and postdischarge COVID-19 patients, with a higher risk in postdischarge patients compared with ambulatory patients. This suggests that regular universal thromboprophylaxis in these patient populations is probably not necessary.
PubMed: 36299810
DOI: 10.1055/a-1913-4377 -
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology Oct 2021Catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) for acute peripheral arterial occlusion is time consuming and carries a risk of major hemorrhage. Contrast-enhanced sonothrombolysis... (Review)
Review
Catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) for acute peripheral arterial occlusion is time consuming and carries a risk of major hemorrhage. Contrast-enhanced sonothrombolysis (CEST) might enhance outcomes compared with standard CDT. In the study described here, we systematically reviewed all in vivo studies on contrast-enhanced sonothrombolysis in a setting of arterial thrombosis. A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases was conducted. Two reviewers independently performed the study selection, quality assessment and data extraction. Primary outcomes were recanalization rate and thrombus weight. Secondary outcome was any possible adverse event. The 35 studies included in this review were conducted in four different (pre)clinical settings: ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, (peripheral) arterial thrombosis and arteriovenous graft occlusion. Because of the high heterogeneity among the studies, it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis. In almost all studies, recanalization rates were higher in the group that underwent a form of CEST. One study was terminated early because of a higher incidence of intracranial hemorrhage. Studies on CEST suggest that adding microbubbles and ultrasound to standard intra-arterial CDT is safe and might improve outcomes in acute peripheral arterial thrombosis. Further research is needed before CEST can be implemented in daily practice.
Topics: Fibrinolytic Agents; Hemorrhage; Humans; Microbubbles; Stroke; Thrombolytic Therapy; Thrombosis; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 34272082
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2021.06.001 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Nov 2023To assess the absolute treatment effects of intravascular imaging guided versus angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with coronary artery... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the absolute treatment effects of intravascular imaging guided versus angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with coronary artery disease, considering their baseline risk.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to 31 August 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized controlled trials comparing intravascular imaging (intravascular ultrasonography or optical coherence tomography) guided versus coronary angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention in adults with coronary artery disease.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Random effect meta-analysis and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) were used to assess certainty of evidence. Data included rate ratios and absolute risks per 1000 people for cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, target vessel revascularization, and target lesion revascularization. Absolute risk differences were estimated using SYNTAX risk categories for baseline risks at five years, assuming constant rate ratios across different cardiovascular risk thresholds.
RESULTS
In 20 randomized controlled trials (n=11 698), intravascular imaging guided percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a reduced risk of cardiac death (rate ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.72), myocardial infarction (0.81, 0.68 to 0.97), stent thrombosis (0.44, 0.27 to 0.72), target vessel revascularization (0.74, 0.61 to 0.89), and target lesion revascularization (0.71, 0.59 to 0.86) but not all cause death (0.81, 0.64 to 1.02). Using SYNTAX risk categories, high certainty evidence showed that from low risk to high risk, intravascular imaging was likely associated with 23 to 64 fewer cardiac deaths, 15 to 19 fewer myocardial infarctions, 9 to 13 fewer stent thrombosis events, 28 to 38 fewer target vessel revascularization events, and 35 to 48 fewer target lesion revascularization events per 1000 people.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with coronary angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention, intravascular imaging guided percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with significantly reduced cardiac death and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. The estimated absolute effects of intravascular imaging guided percutaneous coronary intervention showed a proportional relation with baseline risk, driven by the severity and complexity of coronary artery disease.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42023433568.
Topics: Humans; Coronary Angiography; Coronary Artery Disease; Drug-Eluting Stents; Risk Factors; Myocardial Infarction; Thrombosis; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Death; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37973170
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-077848 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022The primary manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The primary manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis and thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or arterial thrombosis. People with COVID-19 who develop thromboembolism have a worse prognosis. Anticoagulants such as heparinoids (heparins or pentasaccharides), vitamin K antagonists and direct anticoagulants are used for the prevention and treatment of venous or arterial thromboembolism. Besides their anticoagulant properties, heparinoids have an additional anti-inflammatory potential. However, the benefit of anticoagulants for people with COVID-19 is still under debate.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention in people hospitalised with COVID-19.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and IBECS databases, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and medRxiv preprint database from their inception to 14 April 2021. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified, and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cohort studies that compared prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention for the management of people hospitalised with COVID-19. We excluded studies without a comparator group and with a retrospective design (all previously included studies) as we were able to include better study designs. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and necessity for additional respiratory support. Secondary outcomes were mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, adverse events, length of hospital stay and quality of life.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used Cochrane RoB 1 to assess the risk of bias for RCTs, ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias for non-randomised studies (NRS) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We meta-analysed data when appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven studies (16,185 participants) with participants hospitalised with COVID-19, in either intensive care units, hospital wards or emergency departments. Studies were from Brazil (2), Iran (1), Italy (1), and the USA (1), and two involved more than country. The mean age of participants was 55 to 68 years and the follow-up period ranged from 15 to 90 days. The studies assessed the effects of heparinoids, direct anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists, and reported sparse data or did not report some of our outcomes of interest: necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life. Higher-dose versus lower-dose anticoagulants (4 RCTs, 4647 participants) Higher-dose anticoagulants result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 4489 participants; 4 RCTs) and increase minor bleeding (RR 3.28, 95% CI 1.75 to 6.14, 1196 participants; 3 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (high-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants probably reduce pulmonary embolism (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70, 4360 participants; 4 RCTs), and slightly increase major bleeding (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.80, 4400 participants; 4 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in deep vein thrombosis (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.03, 3422 participants; 4 RCTs), stroke (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.03, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), major adverse limb events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99, 1176 participants; 2 RCTs), myocardial infarction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.55, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), atrial fibrillation (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.70, 562 participants; 1 study), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.24, 2789 participants; 2 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether higher-dose anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Anticoagulants versus no treatment (3 prospective NRS, 11,538 participants) Anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence is very uncertain due to two study results being at critical and serious risk of bias (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.74, 8395 participants; 3 NRS; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, stroke, myocardial infarction and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Ongoing studies We found 62 ongoing studies in hospital settings (60 RCTs, 35,470 participants; 2 prospective NRS, 120 participants) in 20 different countries. Thirty-five ongoing studies plan to report mortality and 26 plan to report necessity for additional respiratory support. We expect 58 studies to be completed in December 2021, and four in July 2022. From 60 RCTs, 28 are comparing different doses of anticoagulants, 24 are comparing anticoagulants versus no anticoagulants, seven are comparing different types of anticoagulants, and one did not report detail of the comparator group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
When compared to a lower-dose regimen, higher-dose anticoagulants result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality and increase minor bleeding in people hospitalised with COVID-19 up to 30 days. Higher-dose anticoagulants possibly reduce pulmonary embolism, slightly increase major bleeding, may result in little to no difference in hospitalisation time, and may result in little to no difference in deep vein thrombosis, stroke, major adverse limb events, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, or thrombocytopenia. Compared with no treatment, anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence comes from non-randomised studies and is very uncertain. It is unclear whether anticoagulants have any effect on the remaining outcomes compared to no anticoagulants (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Although we are very confident that new RCTs will not change the effects of different doses of anticoagulants on mortality and minor bleeding, high-quality RCTs are still needed, mainly for the other primary outcome (necessity for additional respiratory support), the comparison with no anticoagulation, when comparing the types of anticoagulants and giving anticoagulants for a prolonged period of time.
Topics: Aged; Anticoagulants; COVID-19; Heparin; Humans; Middle Aged; SARS-CoV-2; Thromboembolism
PubMed: 35244208
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013739.pub2 -
European Journal of Neurology Oct 2021Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection predisposes patients to arterial and venous thrombosis. This study aimed to systematically review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection predisposes patients to arterial and venous thrombosis. This study aimed to systematically review the available evidence in the literature for cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) in association with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19).
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases to identify cases of COVID-19-associated CVT. The search period spanned 1 January 2020 to 1 December 2020, and the review protocol (PROSPERO-CRD42020214327) followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Identified studies were evaluated for bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A proportion meta-analysis was performed to estimate the frequency of CVT among hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
RESULTS
We identified 57 cases from 28 reports. Study quality was mostly classified as low. CVT symptoms developed after respiratory disease in 90%, and the mean interval was 13 days. CVT involved multiple sites in 67% of individuals, the deep venous system was affected in 37%, and parenchymal hemorrhage was found in 42%. Predisposing factors for CVT beyond SARS-CoV-2 infection were present in 31%. In-hospital mortality was 40%. Using data from 34,331 patients, the estimated frequency of CVT among patients hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 infection was 0.08% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01-0.5). In an inpatient setting, CVT accounted for 4.2% of cerebrovascular disorders in individuals with COVID-19 (cohort of 406 patients, 95% CI: 1.47-11.39).
CONCLUSIONS
Cerebral venous thrombosis in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection is a rare, although there seems to be an increased relative risk. High suspicion is necessary, because the diagnosis of this potentially life-threatening condition in COVID-19 patients can be challenging. Evidence is still scarce on the pathophysiology and potential prevention of COVID-19-associated CVT.
Topics: COVID-19; Cohort Studies; Humans; Intracranial Thrombosis; SARS-CoV-2; Venous Thrombosis
PubMed: 33426733
DOI: 10.1111/ene.14727 -
Annals of Vascular Surgery Jan 2021Emerging evidence suggests that severe form of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is mediated, in part, by a hypercoagulable state characterized by micro- and...
BACKGROUND
Emerging evidence suggests that severe form of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is mediated, in part, by a hypercoagulable state characterized by micro- and macro-vascular thrombotic angiopathy. Although venous thrombotic events in COVID-19 patients have been well described, data on arterial thrombosis (AT) in these patients is still limited. We, therefore, conducted a rapid systematic review of current scientific literature to identify and consolidate evidence of AT in COVID-19 patients.
METHODS
A systematic search of literature was conducted between November 1, 2019, and June 9, 2020, on PubMed and China National Knowledge Infrastructure to identify potentially eligible studies.
RESULTS
A total of 27 studies (5 cohort, 5 case series, and 17 case reports) describing arterial thrombotic events in 90 COVID-19 patients were included. The pooled incidence of AT in severe/critically ill intensive care unit-admitted COVID-19 patients across the 5 cohort studies was 4.4% (95% confidence interval 2.8-6.4). Most of the patients were male, elderly, and had comorbidities. AT was symptomatic in >95% of these patients and involved multiple arteries in approximately 18% of patients. The anatomical distribution of arterial thrombotic events was wide, occurring in limb arteries (39%), cerebral arteries (24%), great vessels (aorta, common iliac, common carotid, and brachiocephalic trunk; 19%), coronary arteries (9%), and superior mesenteric artery (8%). The mortality rate in these patients is approximately 20%.
CONCLUSIONS
AT occurs in approximately 4% of critically ill COVID-19 patients. It often presents symptomatically and can affect multiple arteries. Further investigation of the underlying mechanism of AT in COVID-19 would be needed to clarify possible therapeutic targets.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Arterial Occlusive Diseases; Blood Coagulation; COVID-19; Host-Pathogen Interactions; Humans; Incidence; Male; Middle Aged; Prognosis; Risk Factors; SARS-CoV-2; Thrombosis
PubMed: 32866574
DOI: 10.1016/j.avsg.2020.08.087 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jul 2023Chronic total occlusions (CTO) in coronary angiographies present a significant challenge nowadays. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) is a valuable tool during CTO-PCI,... (Review)
Review
Chronic total occlusions (CTO) in coronary angiographies present a significant challenge nowadays. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) is a valuable tool during CTO-PCI, aiding in planning and achieving procedural success. However, the impact of IVUS on clinical and procedural outcomes in CTO-PCI remains uncertain. This meta-analysis aimed to compare IVUS-guided and angiography-guided approaches in CTO-PCI. The study included five studies and 2320 patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and CTO. The primary outcome of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) did not significantly differ between the groups ( = 0.40). Stent thrombosis was the only secondary clinical outcome that showed a significant difference, favoring the IVUS-guided approach ( = 0.01). Procedural outcomes revealed that IVUS-guided procedures had longer stents, larger diameters, and longer procedure and fluoroscopy times ( = 0.007, < 0.001, = 0.03, = 0.002, respectively). Stent number and contrast volume did not significantly differ between the approaches ( = 0.88 and = 0.33, respectively). In summary, routine IVUS use did not significantly improve clinical outcomes, except for reducing stent thrombosis. Decisions in CTO-PCI should be individualized based on patient characteristics and supported by a multi-parametric approach.
PubMed: 37568352
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12154947