Current status of intravascular ultrasound in interventional cardiology

Czech version

Authors: Tomáš Kovárník
Authors‘ workplace: II. interní klinika kardiologie a angiologie 1. LF UK a VFN Praha, přednosta prof. MUDr. Aleš Linhart, DrSc., FESC, FCMA
Published in: Vnitř Lék 2014; 60(12): 1062-1067
Category: 70. birthday prof. MUDr. Michael Aschermann, DrSc., FESC, FACC

Overview

Although intravascular ultrasound has been used for decades, its common application in catheterization centres during coronary interventions is very rare and merely reaches few percents. The reason is the lack of randomized trials of its use and often few experiences in evaluation of ultrasound findings. Data based on meta-analysis of observational studies clearly demonstrated the positive effect on the most important parameters for the treatment of patients with ischemic heart disease, such as mortality and incidence of myocardial infarction after coronary interventions. Therefore, according to the latest guidelines for myocardial revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology is level of recommendation in category IIa for the use of intravascular ultrasound. IVUS continues to be an important part of new investigation methods which try to better describe coronary atherosclerosis. Particularly, it is the method NIRS (near-infrared spectroscopy) and other new methods of evaluating the composition and mechanical properties of plaque. These facts suggest that IVUS maintains its contribution in time of optical coherence tomography (OCT) and the emphasis put on the functional assessment of coronary stenoses.

Key words:
coronary atherosclerosis – intravascular ultrasound – percutaneous coronary intervention

Sources

1. Aschermann A, Fergusson JJ. Současné možnosti využití intravaskulárního ultrazvukového vyšetření. Čas Lék Čes 1992; 131(17): 516–520.

2. Mintz GS. Intracoronary Ultrasound. Taylor &Francis: London 2005. ISBN 978–1841840475.

3. Garcia-Garcia H, Gogas BD, Serruys PW et al. IVUS-based imaging modalities for tissue characterization: similarities and differences. In J Cardiovasc Imaging 2011; 27(2): 215–224.

4. Nair A, Margolis P, Kuban B et al. Automated coronary plaque characterisation with intravascular ultrasound backscatter: ex vivo validation. EuroIntervention 2007; 3(1): 113–120.

5. de Jaegere P, Mudra H, Figulla H et al. Intravascular ultrasound-guided optimized stent deployment. Immediate and 6 months clinical and angiographic results from the Multicenter Ultrasound Stenting in Coronaries Study (MUSIC Study). Eur Heart J 1998; 19(8): 1214–1223.

6. Schiele F, Meneveau N, Vuillemenot A et al. Impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance in stent deployment on 6-month restenosis rate: a multicenter, randomized study comparing two strategies--with and without intravascular ultrasound guidance. RESIST Study Group. REStenosis after Ivus guided STenting. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 32(2): 320–328.

7. Mudra H, di Mario C, de Jaegere P et al. Randomized comparison of coronary stent implantation under ultrasound or angiographic guidance to reduce stent restenosis (OPTICUS study). Circulation 2001; 104(12): 1343–1349.

8. Gil RJ, Pawlowski T, Dudek D et al. Investigators of Direct Stenting vs. Optimal Angioplasty trial (DIPOL). Comparison of angiographically guided direct stenting technique with direct stenting and optimal balloon angioplasty guided with intravascular ultrasound: the multicenter, randomized trial results. Am Heart J 2007; 154(4): 669–675.

9. Casella G, Klauss V, Ottani F et al. Impact of intravascular ultrasound-guided stenting on long-term clinical outcome: a meta-analysis of available studies comparing intravascular ultrasound-guided and angiographically guided stenting. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2003; 59(3): 314–321.

10. Parise H, Maehara A, Stone GW et al. Meta-analysis of randomized studies comparing intravascular ultrasound versus angiographic guidance of percutaneous coronary intervention in pre-drug-eluting stent era. Am J Cardiol 2011; 107(3): 374–382.

11. Jakabcin J, Spacek R, Bystron M et al. Long-term health outcome and mortality evaluation after invasive coronary treatment using drug eluting stents with or without the IVUS guidance. Randomized control trial. HOME DES IVUS. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2010; 75(4): 578–583.

12. Zhang Y, Farooq V, Garcia-Garcia HM et al. Comparison of intravascular ultrasound versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation: a meta-analysis of one randomised trial and ten observational studies involving 19,619 patients. Eurointervention 2012; 8(7): 855–865.

13. Jang JS, Song YJ, Kang W et al. Intravascular ultrasound-guided implantation of drug-eluting stentts to improve outcome: a meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 7(3): 233–243.

14. Ahn JM, Kang SJ, Yoon SH et al. Meta-analysis of outcomes after intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation in 26,503 patients enrolled in three randomized trials and 14 observational studies. Am J Cardiol 2014; 113(8): 1338–1347.

15. Witzenbichler B, Maehara A, Weisz G et al. Relationship between intravascular ultrasound guidance and clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stents the assessment of dual antiplatelet therapy with drug-eluting stents (ADAPT-DES) Study. Circulation 2014; 129(4): 463–470.

16. Pu J, Mintz GS, Brilakis ES et al. In vivo characterization of coronary plaques: novel findings from comparing greyscale and virtual histology intravascular ultrasound and near-infrared spectroscopy. Eur Heart J 2012; 33(3): 372–383.

17. Park SJ, Kang SJ, Ahjn JM et al. Visual-functional mismatch between coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve. JACC Cardiol Interv 2012; 5(10): 1029–1036.

18. Briguori C, Anzuini A, Airoldi F et al. Intravascular ultrasound criteria for the assessment of the functional significance of intermediate coronary artery stenoses and comparison with fractional flow reserve. Am J Cardiol 2001; 87(2): 136–141.

19. Nishioka T, Amanullah A, Luo H et al. Clinical validation of intravascular ultrasound imaging for assessment of coronary stenosis severity. Comparison with stress myocardial perfusion imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 33(7): 1870–1878.

20. Jasti V, Ivan E, Yalamanchili V et al. Correlation between fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound in patients with an ambiguous left main coronary artery stenosis. Circulation 2004; 110(18): 2831–2836.

21. de la Torre Hernandez JM, Hernández Hernandez F, Alfonso F et al. Prospective application of pre-defined intravascular ultrasound criteria for assessment of intermediate left main coronary artery lesions results from the multicenter LITRO study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 58(4): 351–358.

22. Puri R, Kapadia S, Nicholls S et al. Optimizing outcomes during left main percutaneous coronary intervention with intravascular ultrasound and fractional flow reserve. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2012; 5(7): 697–707.

23. Akyildiz AC, Speelman L, van Brummelen H et al. Effects of intima stiffness and plaque morphology on peak cap stress. Biomed Eng Online 2011; 10: 25. Dostupné z DOI: <http//dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475–925X-10–25>.

24. Jansen K, van Soest G, van der Steen AF Intravascular photoacoustic imaging: a new tool for vulnerable plaque identification. Ultrasound Med Biol 2014; 40(6): 1037–1048.

25. Jansen K, Wu M, van der Steen AF et al. Photoacoustic imaging of human coronary atherosclerosis in two spectral bands. Photoacoustic 2013; 2(1): 12–20.