Angiographic-only or intravascular ultrasound-guided approach for left-main coronary artery intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Sameer Saleem, Waqas Ullah, Maryam Mukhtar, Deepika Sarvepalli, Sundas Younas, Shuaib Ahmed Arab, Bashar Al Hemyari, Salman Zahid, Salik Nazir, Tayyab Cheema, Tanveer Mir, Mohammad Abdul‐Waheed
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in percutaneous revascularization of left-main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) warrants further exploration. We aimed to collate all available data on the merits of IVUS in LMCAD to help decision-making. METHODS: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were queried for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies (OCS). The data were analyzed using random-effects model to calculate unadjusted odds ratio (OR) between IVUS-guided and angiography-only LMCA revascularization. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies (2 RCTs and 12 OCS), comprising 18944 patients, were included. The pooled odds of all-cause mortality (OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.46-0.70, p = <0.00001), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.37, 95%CI 0.26-0.54, p = <0.00001), left-main revascularization (OR 0.63, 95%CI 0.45-0.89, p = 0.009) and myocardial infarction (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66-0.97, p = 0.02) were significantly lower with IVUS-guidance. There was no difference observed in the odds of the stent thrombosis (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.31-1.05, p = 0.07) and stroke (OR 1.7, 95%CI 0.56-5.14, p = 0.35) between the two groups. A subgroup analysis based on the study design and follow-up duration mirrored the pooled estimates. CONCLUSION: IVUS-guided LMCA intervention is associated with overall improved cardiovascular outcomes than the angiography-only approach. This needs to be tested in a large randomized controlled trial.