계명대학교 의학도서관 Repository

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

Metadata Downloads
Author(s)
Namkyun KimJang Hoon LeeSe Yong JangMyung Hwan BaeDong Heon YangHun Sik ParkYongkeun ChoMyung HoJeongJong‐Seon ParkHyo‐Soo KimSeung‐Ho HurIn‐Whan SeongMyeong‐Chan ChoChong‐Jin KimShung Chull Chae
Keimyung Author(s)
Hur, Seung Ho
Department
Dept. of Internal Medicine (내과학)
Journal Title
Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions
Issued Date
2020
Volume
95
Issue
4
Keyword
acute myocardial infarctionangiographyfractional flow reserveintravascular ultrasoundoptical coherence tomographyprognosis
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.
Keimyung Author(s)(Kor)
허승호
Publisher
School of Medicine (의과대학)
Citation
Namkyun Kim et al. (2020). Intravascular modality-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction. Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 95(4), 696–703. doi: 10.1002/ccd.28359
Type
Article
ISSN
1522-726X
Source
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ccd.28359
DOI
10.1002/ccd.28359
URI
https://kumel.medlib.dsmc.or.kr/handle/2015.oak/43009
Appears in Collections:
1. School of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Internal Medicine (내과학)
공개 및 라이선스
  • 공개 구분공개
  • 엠바고Forever
파일 목록

Items in Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.