To date, only a few studies have compared the clinical efficacy of intracoronary ultrasound (IVUS)-guided to angiographically guided stenting. Furthermore, it is not yet known whether the lower restenosis rate shown with the former strategy would translate into a substantial clinical advantage. Therefore, the aim of the present investigation was to improve the level of evidence of these studies by means of a formal meta-analysis. Nine studies were considered suitable for analysis. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for 6-month clinical follow-up. Primary endpoint was a composite of death and nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), as considered in every single study. Secondary endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), according to single study definition, the individual cardiac events, as well as several pre- and postprocedure and follow-up angiographic parameters. Overall, 2,972 patients were included. At 6 months, the OR for death and nonfatal MI was 1.13 (95% CI = 0.79-1.61; P = 0.5) for patients with IVUS-guided stenting. However, patients with IVUS-guided stenting had less target vessel revascularizations (OR = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.49-0.78; P = 0.00003) and MACEs (OR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.64-0.98; P = 0.03) compared to angiographically guided stenting. In addition, subjects treated with IVUS-guided stenting had significantly less binary restenosis (OR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.60-0.94; P = 0.01). The present meta-analysis demonstrates that IVUS-guided stenting implantation has a neutral effect on long-term death and nonfatal MI compared to an angiographic optimization. However, IVUS-guided stenting significantly lowers 6-month angiographic restenosis and target vessel revascularizations. Whether these benefits could be very helpful when dealing with lesions at high risk for restenosis is still an issue.
Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.