Is Routine Postdilation During Angiography-Guided Stent Implantation as Good as Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance?:
Yong-Joon Lee1, Jun-Jie Zhang2, Gary S Mintz3
1Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea (Y.-J.L., S.-J.H., C.-M.A., J.-S.K., B.-K.K., Y.-G.K., D.C., Y.J., M.-K.H.).
Background:
There are 2 competing approaches to optimize drug-eluting stent implantation: angiography-guided routine postdilation or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance.
Methods:
From the pooled data of 2 randomized trials, IVUS-XPL (Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance on the Outcomes of Xience Prime Stents in Long Lesions) and ULTIMATE (Intravascular Ultrasound Guided Drug Eluting Stents Implantation in All-Comers Coronary Lesions), that compared IVUS- versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation, we compared 1037 patients (1265 lesions) with IVUS-guided postdilation, 905 patients (1170 lesions) with angiography-guided postdilation, and 383 patients (397 lesions) with angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation without postdilation as a reference group; all patients required ≥28 mm long stents. The primary end point was composite of cardiac death, target lesion-related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization at 3 years.
Results:
Postintervention quantitative coronary angiography-based minimum lumen diameter was not different between the angiography guidance with postdilation versus the angiography guidance without postdilation group (2.5±0.4 mm versus 2.5±0.4 mm; P=0.367). However, it was larger in the IVUS guidance with postdilation versus the angiography guidance without postdilation group (2.6±0.5 mm versus 2.5±0.4 mm; P=0.046), and also in the IVUS guidance with postdilation versus the angiography guidance with postdilation group (2.6±0.5 mm versus 2.5±0.4 mm; P<0.001). The rate of the primary end point was not different between the angiography guidance with postdilation versus the angiography guidance without postdilation group (8.6% versus 9.8%; hazard ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.58-1.29]; P=0.473). However, it was lower after IVUS guidance with postdilation versus angiography guidance without postdilation (4.5% versus 9.8%; hazard ratio, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.28-0.68]; P<0.001) and also after IVUS guidance with postdilation versus angiography guidance with postdilation (4.5% versus 8.6%; hazard ratio, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.35-0.74]; P<0.001).
Conclusions:
In patients undergoing long drug-eluting stent implantation, IVUS-guided postdilation was associated with improved long-term clinical outcomes, unlike angiography-guided postdilation.
