Document Detail

Does intravascular ultrasound provide clinical benefits for percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal stent implantation? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Jump to Full Text
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  22999055     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
BACKGROUND: The role of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) is still controversial despite several previously published meta-analyses. A meta-analysis to evaluate the controversial role of IVUS-guided PCI with bare-metal stenting was performed and a previous published meta-analysis was re-evaluated in order to clarify the discrepancy between results of these studies.
METHODS: A systematic review was performed by an electronic search of the PubMed, Embase and Web of Knowledge databases and by a manual search of reference lists for randomized controlled trials published until April 2011, with clinical outcomes and, at least, six months of clinical follow-up. A meta-analysis based on the intention to treat was performed with the selected studies.
RESULTS: Five studies and 1,754 patients were included. There were no differences in death (OR = 1.86; 95% CI = 0.88-3.95; p = 0.10), non-fatal myocardial infarction (OR = 0.65; 95% CI = 0.27-1.58; p = 0.35) and major adverse cardiac events (OR = 0.74; 95% CI = 0.49-1.13; p = 0.16). An analysis of the previous published meta-analysis strongly suggested the presence of publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence to recommend routine IVUS-guided PCI with bare-metal stent implantation. This may be explained by the paucity and heterogeneity of the studies published so far.
Authors:
Lucas Lodi-Junqueira; Marcos Roberto de Sousa; Leonardo Carvalho da Paixão; Silvana Márcia Bruschi Kelles; Carlos Faria Santos Amaral; Antonio L Ribeiro
Related Documents :
17205005 - Daily sedative interruption in mechanically ventilated patients at risk for coronary ar...
2471895 - Ischemia-induced conduction delay and ventricular arrhythmias: comparative electropharm...
14715325 - Silent myocardial ischemia: concepts and controversies.
2362465 - Observations on the treatment of coronary heart disease by kuo guan qu yu ling.
9498985 - Right ventricular aneurysm associated with advanced hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.
20221615 - Effects of the main green tea polyphenol epigallocatechin-3-gallate on cardiac involvem...
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Meta-Analysis     Date:  2012-09-21
Journal Detail:
Title:  Systematic reviews     Volume:  1     ISSN:  2046-4053     ISO Abbreviation:  Syst Rev     Publication Date:  2012  
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2013-01-03     Completed Date:  2013-05-27     Revised Date:  2013-07-11    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  101580575     Medline TA:  Syst Rev     Country:  England    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  42     Citation Subset:  IM    
Affiliation:
Instituto de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde (IATS), do Hospital das Clínicas da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Avenida Alfredo Balena, 110, CEP, 30130-100, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. lucaslodi@yahoo.com.br
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Humans
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention*
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Stents*
Treatment Outcome
Ultrasonography, Interventional*
Comments/Corrections

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Full Text
Journal Information
Journal ID (nlm-ta): Syst Rev
Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Syst Rev
ISSN: 2046-4053
Publisher: BioMed Central
Article Information
Download PDF
Copyright ©2012 Lodi-Junqueira et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
open-access:
Received Day: 20 Month: 6 Year: 2012
Accepted Day: 10 Month: 9 Year: 2012
collection publication date: Year: 2012
Electronic publication date: Day: 21 Month: 9 Year: 2012
Volume: 1First Page: 42 Last Page: 42
PubMed Id: 22999055
ID: 3534608
Publisher Id: 2046-4053-1-42
DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-42

Does intravascular ultrasound provide clinical benefits for percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal stent implantation? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Lucas Lodi-Junqueira12 Email: lucaslodi@yahoo.com.br
Marcos Roberto de Sousa13 Email: sousa.mr@uol.com.br
Leonardo Carvalho da Paixão1 Email: leonardopaixao@yahoo.com.br
Silvana Márcia Bruschi Kelles1 Email: silvanakelles@gmail.com
Carlos Faria Santos Amaral13 Email: cfsamaral@terra.com.br
Antonio L Ribeiro13 Email: tom1963br@yahoo.com.br
1Instituto de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde (IATS), do Hospital das Clínicas da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Avenida Alfredo Balena, 110, CEP, 30130-100, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil
2Setor de Hemodinâmica do Hospital das Clínicas da UFMG, Avenida Alfredo Balena, 110, CEP, 30130-100, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil
3Departamento de Clínica Médica da Faculdade de Medicina da UFMG, Avenida Alfredo Balena, 190, CEP, 30130-100, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil

Background

Since the first studies of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) were published in 1989 [1-4], the technique has been widely used in clinical research and has contributed to technological improvements in interventional cardiology [5]. As a diagnostic tool, IVUS helps in the assessment of coronary lesions classified as moderate based on angiography, especially those located in the left main coronary artery [6,7], and in the assessment of long lesions, small artery lesions, bifurcations and in-stent restenosis [8,9]. As an ancillary technique in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), IVUS is useful in the evaluation of the target lesion and during stent implantation [10]. In theory, its use should reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) because of lower restenosis and stent thrombosis rates.

The first published systematic review evaluated the role of IVUS in PCI as well as its cost-effectiveness and did not show any difference between IVUS and angio-guided PCI [11]. A few years later, a meta-analysis did not show any reduction in death or myocardial infarction (MI) but revealed reductions in repeat revascularization and angiographic restenosis after a six-month follow-up [12]. This was corroborated by another meta-analysis that suggested an improvement in acute post-interventional results (larger minimal luminal diameter) and lower repeat revascularization, angiographic restenosis and MACE rates, but showed no effect on death or MI during the follow-up period of six to thirty months [13].

Since IVUS clinical benefit is still controversial and conclusions of meta-analyses may be misleading due to methodological issues, we performed a meta-analysis to assess the effect of IVUS in PCI with bare-metal stent implantation on clinically relevant outcomes, assessing the presence of publication bias. In addition, a critical review of the last published meta-analysis [13] was performed in order to clarify the discrepancy in the results found in this analysis comparing to medical literature.


Methods

The protocol for the present systematic review was based on the PRISMA Statement [14] and it was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42012002767).

Strategy search

We performed an electronic search of PubMed, Embase and Web of Knowledge databases with the following terms: Myocardial Ischemia; Ischemic Heart Disease; Acute Coronary Syndrome; Angina; Coronary Disease; Coronary Artery Disease; Coronary Occlusion; Coronary Thrombosis and Myocardial Infarction, in association with the terms Interventional Ultraso*; Intravascular Ultraso*; Intracoronary Ultraso*; IVUS and ICUS.

A manual search was also performed to retrieve potential articles cited in previous meta-analyses, in review articles and those considered to be relevant by the reviewers. The electronic search, which evaluated the articles included in the databases through April 2011, was limited neither by publication date nor by language.

Eligibility criteria

Only randomized controlled trials that compared IVUS-guided PCI with angiography-guided PCI, with clinical outcomes, and at least six months of clinical follow-up, were included in quantitative synthesis. The clinical outcomes considered were death, nonfatal MI and the combined endpoint of MACE (death, nonfatal MI, or repeat revascularization). For repeat revascularization, a report of any new coronary revascularization (surgical or percutaneous) was considered, regardless of the lesion and of the vessel treated. Surrogate outcomes, such as angiographic outcomes, were not taken into account because these can show a positive result with no effect (or harmful effect) on clinical outcomes [15]. These clinical outcomes (death, nonfatal MI and MACE) were considered primary endpoints in our meta-analysis.

Study selection

The titles and abstracts from the articles retrieved by the search strategy had been independently evaluated by two reviewers (LCP, LLJ). All articles in which IVUS was mentioned were selected. These articles were fully read, and those that met the criteria were included. Disagreements were solved by consensus. If consensus was not achieved, a third reviewer (ALR) defined the question.

Statistical analysis

The intention-to-treat meta-analysis that followed the systematic review was performed by the random-effects model of the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H. Version 2.2.048, Biostat, Englewood NJ, USA 2005), with the odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence intervals and two-sided P-values calculated for each outcome. The analysis of heterogeneity between studies was estimated by the I2 statistic.

Publication bias evaluation was performed by Duval and Tweedie’s Trim and Fill method [16]. Egger's test was also performed to analyze the impact of several factors on the size of the treatment effect [17]. The small study effect was also evaluated by cumulative analysis (from largest to smallest sample size) and by the one-study-removed method.


Results
Literature search

A total of 4,247 articles in PubMed, 869 in Embase and 4,260 in Web of Knowledge databases were identified. Eight studies were selected according to the inclusion criteria (Figure 1) [18-26]. After a comprehensive analysis, three studies were excluded because they used a provisional stenting technique [19,25,26], which is no longer performed because of its higher restenosis rate [27]. Table 1 summarizes the clinical and angiographic characteristics of the patients included in the selected studies.

Qualitative study analysis

There were significant differences between the five studies included in the final analysis (Table 2). One of the current indications of IVUS-guided PCI is for patients with long lesions (greater than 15 or 25 mm) [8,28,29], who have been excluded from most studies [18,20,24]. Unlike the others, the TULIP study excluded those patients who had focal lesions (less than 20 mm in length). Every study but the AVID trial excluded patients with a current or past history of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). In the RESIST study, randomization was performed only after the intervention, which may have caused a selection bias. In the AVID trial, the IVUS analysis was only performed after implantation of the stent, excluding the initial assessment of the target lesion [8].

The criteria for optimal stent implantation were heterogeneous. Only the OPTICUS study used the criteria proposed by the MUSIC study [10]. The majority of patients underwent angiographic assessment after six months (angiographic follow-up) [20,22,24]. Another difference between the studies was in the criteria used for MACE. In the RESIST study, MI was not included. In the TULIP study, the MACE criteria included death, nonfatal MI and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). In the AVID trial, the composition of this outcome was not explained. In the other studies, the criteria for repeat revascularization were more comprehensive and included coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or a repeated PCI for any reason [18,20,21,24].

Heterogeneity

The heterogeneity among the studies showed intermediate values in nonfatal MI (I2 = 48.82%) and MACE (I2 = 57.38%). For death, no heterogeneity was observed among the studies (I2 = 0%).

Publication bias

We also evaluated the possibility of publication bias (B0) for MACE. Egger’s Test (B0 = −3.43; 95% CI − 6.40 to −0.47, one-tailed P-value 0.02) and the trim and fill test (observed OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.13; two studies imputed: adjusted OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.44) (Figure 2) were positive, suggesting the presence of small studies effects, which can be attributable to differences in design (not detected) or to publication bias.

Meta-analysis results

A total of 1,754 patients were randomized in five studies. There was no statistically significant difference between the IVUS-guided group and the angiography-guided group (Table 3) for death (OR 1.86, 95% CI 0.88 to 3.95, P = 0.10) (Figure 3-A), nonfatal MI (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.58, P = 0.35) (Figure 3-B) or MACE (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.13, P = 0.16) (Figure 3-C).

Reviewing published data

In order to clarify the discrepancy in MACE results found in this analysis compared to the medical literature, the data of a previously published meta-analysis [13] were re-evaluated (Figure 4). Among the studies selected by that meta-analysis, only two were not included in the present selection because the provisional stenting technique was employed in both of them [19,25].

A funnel plot analysis was performed along with Egger’s Test (B0 = −3.66, 95% CI − 5.54 to −1.78, one-tailed P-value = 0.002) and the trim and fill test (observed OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.98; three studies imputed: adjusted OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.27), which suggested the presence of publication bias [16,17].

A cumulative meta-analysis by reverse order of sample size was performed. The results only became positive when the last and smallest study was included in the analysis (Figure 5). Moreover, the one-study-removed analysis showed that the removal of any one of the smaller studies gave a neutral result from the meta-analysis (Figure 6). This makes it plausible to assume that one small unpublished study with negative results would be enough to nullify the effect of that meta-analysis.


Discussion

In this rigorously conducted meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared IVUS-guided PCI with angiography-guided PCI using bare metal stents, we did not find any advantage of the IVUS-guided strategy over the standard method in clinically relevant outcomes. Indeed, we found evidence of publication bias and of significant heterogeneity among the studies regarding the outcomes MI and MACE. These results diverge from the last two meta-analyses on this topic [12,13], which included studies with provisional stenting, considered surrogate outcomes, and did not evaluate the presence of publication bias. However, they are in concordance with recently published studies of IVUS-guided PCI with drug-eluting stent implantation, which were not associated with significant clinical benefits [30,31].

Differences between selected studies

The five selected studies have important differences that might lead to completely different outcomes in another context. For example, the exclusion of patients presenting with ACS may have led to a reduction in post-interventional adverse events [32-35]. In the AVID trial, pre-interventional IVUS was not performed, which excluded an important phase of the method because one of the roles of IVUS is to assess the target lesion to help in the choice of technique and devices for the PCI [8]. Only the OPTICUS study used the MUSIC study criteria for optimal stent implantation [10], which theoretically could be associated with a lower MACE rate [36]. Angiographic follow-up was performed in most studies, which may have led to an overestimated rate of repeat revascularization, due to the oculo-stenotic reflex [37], which is the predisposition to indicate a PCI for any significant luminal obstruction, despite the presence or absence of myocardial ischemia [38]. The fact that most studies have used more comprehensive criteria for repeat revascularization may have also increased MACE rates [18,20,24].

Study biases

The data analysis suggested the presence of publication bias in both meta-analyses. This bias may have led to apparently positive results that could be easily modified by unpublished studies with small sample sizes. It may be harmful because it can maintain or amplify an apparent beneficial effect of the intervention [39].

Significance-chasing bias is an enticing term that refers to the clustering of the most common types of meta-analysis bias, including those in which the apparently negative results remain unpublished (study publication bias and selective outcome reporting bias), those in which negative results become positive (selective analysis reporting bias) and those in which no existing data are presented as positive (fabrication bias) [40,41].

Selective reporting bias is the most common problem in meta-analyses. In selective outcome reporting bias, specific data with a negative result are omitted from publication. In selective analysis reporting bias, which is even more frequent, a negative result calculated from a pre-determined analysis plan is replaced by a positive result achieved through post hoc data analysis [41].

Another major problem is the potential presence of interests other than scientific truth. This matter becomes critical when the object of the meta-analysis is an industry product, as in the present study, because most of the researches are conducted or funded by manufacturers (Table 4) [42,43]. There is a current trend towards opposing this practice [44].

Meta-analyses have gained prestige over time but they are still considered by some to be an ancillary method, accepted only when it corroborates the point of view of experts and of public policies [41]. They could play a fundamental role in changing (or in supporting) the evidence on relevant issues if conducted properly, with a pre-specified analysis plan and declared conflicts of interest for every study included, in addition to determining and reporting all possible biases.

Limitations

The paucity of randomized controlled trials comparing IVUS-guided PCI and angio-guided PCI and the exclusion of groups with specific lesions (long lesions, small vessels, bifurcations or left main coronary artery) may have masked a possible benefit. The same point applies to the exclusion of patients presenting with ACS, whose rate of cardiovascular events is higher, and PCI, when indicated, may even reduce mortality [32-34].

The low statistical power of the present study and of the re-evaluated meta-analysis [13] is due to the presence of heterogeneity and to the possibility of study publication bias. The presence of other biases might be possible but that is even more difficult to prove.


Conclusion

The clinical benefit of IVUS-guided PCI with bare-metal stent implantation could be determined neither by the meta-analysis presented in this study nor by the re-evaluated meta-analysis. This may be explained by the paucity and heterogeneity of the studies published so far. Furthermore, both meta-analyses showed possible publication biases.

Therefore, there is no evidence so far to recommend routine IVUS-guided PCI with bare-metal stent implantation. Studies on specific subgroups and performance of a simple large randomized trial could show different results.

This research was conducted by public funding from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) (CNPq Project: 559584/2009-1).


Competing interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest in the preparation and in the presentation of this meta-analysis.


Authors’ contributions

LLJ participated in the design of the study, retrieved, reviewed and selected the articles from electronic and manual searches, helped to discuss the results and to draft the manuscript. MRS participated in the design of the study, performed the statistical analysis and helped to discuss the results and to draft the manuscript. LCP retrieved, reviewed and selected the articles from electronic and manual searches. SMBK participated in the design of the study and helped to retrieve articles from electronic searches, to discuss the results and to draft the manuscript. CFSA participated in the design of the study and helped to discuss the results and to draft the manuscript. ALR participated in the coordination of the study, helped to select the articles, to discuss the results and to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.


References
Yock PG,Linker DT,Angelsen BA,Two-dimensional intravascular ultrasound: technical development and initial clinical experienceJ Am Soc EchocardiogrYear: 198922963042697308
Gussenhoven WJ,Essed CE,Frietman P,Mastik F,Lancee C,Slager C,Serruys P,Gerritsen P,Pieterman H,Bom N,Intravascular echographic assessment of vessel wall characteristics: a correlation with histologyInt J Card ImagingYear: 1989410511610.1007/BF017451402527913
Hodgson JM,Graham SP,Savakus AD,Dame SG,Stephens DN,Dhillon PS,Brands D,Sheehan H,Eberle MJ,Clinical percutaneous imaging of coronary anatomy using an over-the-wire ultrasound catheter systemInt J Card ImagingYear: 1989418719310.1007/BF017451492527918
Roelandt JR,Serruys PW,Bom N,Gussenhoven WG,Lancee CT,Ten HH,Intravascular real-time, two-dimensional echocardiographyInt J Card ImagingYear: 19894636710.1007/BF017951272746020
Colombo A,Hall P,Nakamura S,Almagor Y,Maiello L,Martini G,Gaglione A,Goldberg SL,Tobis JM,Intracoronary stenting without anticoagulation accomplished with intravascular ultrasound guidanceCirculationYear: 1995911676168810.1161/01.CIR.91.6.16767882474
Abizaid AS,Mintz GS,Abizaid A,Mehran R,Lansky AJ,Pichard AD,Satler LF,Wu H,Kent KM,Leon MB,One-year follow-up after intravascular ultrasound assessment of moderate left main coronary artery disease in patients with ambiguous angiogramsJ Am Coll CardiolYear: 19993470771510.1016/S0735-1097(99)00261-210483951
Abizaid AS,Mintz GS,Mehran R,Abizaid A,Lansky AJ,Pichard AD,Satler LF,Wu H,Pappas C,Kent KM,Leon MB,Long-term follow-up after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty was not performed based on intravascular ultrasound findings: importance of lumen dimensionsCirculationYear: 199910025626110.1161/01.CIR.100.3.25610411849
Bourantas CV,Naka KK,Garg S,Thackray S,Papadopoulos D,Alamgir FM,Hoye A,Michalis LK,Clinical indications for intravascular ultrasound imagingEchocardiographyYear: 2010271282129010.1111/j.1540-8175.2010.01259.x21092059
Orford JL,Denktas AE,Williams BA,Fasseas P,Willerson JT,Berger PB,Holmes DR Jr,PRESTO InvestigatorsRoutine intravascular ultrasound scanning guidance of coronary stenting is not associated with improved clinical outcomesAm Heart JYear: 200414850150610.1016/j.ahj.2004.03.03315389239
De JP,Mudra H,Figulla H,Almagor Y,Doucet S,Penn I,Colombo A,Hamm C,Bartorelli A,Rothman M,Nobuyoshi M,Yamaguchi T,Voudris V,DiMario C,Makovski S,Hausmann D,Rowe S,Rabinovich S,Sunamura M,van Es GA,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 JYear: 1998191214122310.1053/euhj.1998.10129740343
Berry E,Kelly S,Hutton J,Lindsay HS,Blaxill JM,Evans JA,Connelly J,Tisch J,Walker GC,Sivananthan UM,Smith MA,Intravascular ultrasound-guided interventions in coronary artery disease: a systematic literature review, with decision-analytic modelling, of outcomes and cost-effectivenessHealth Technol AssessYear: 20004111711109031
Casella G,Klauss V,Ottani F,Siebert U,Sangiorgio P,Bracchetti D,Impact of intravascular ultrasound-guided stenting on long-term clinical outcome: a meta-analysis of available studies comparing intravascular ultrasound-guided and angiographically guided stentingCatheter Cardiovasc IntervYear: 20035931432110.1002/ccd.1053712822148
Parise H,Maehara A,Stone GW,Leon MB,Mintz GS,Meta-analysis of randomized studies comparing intravascular ultrasound versus angiographic guidance of percutaneous coronary intervention in pre-drug-eluting stent eraAm J CardiolYear: 201110737438210.1016/j.amjcard.2010.09.03021257001
Moher D,Liberati A,Tetzlaff J,Altman DG,Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statementBMJYear: 2009339b253510.1136/bmj.b253519622551
la Cour JL,Brok J,Gotzsche PC,Inconsistent reporting of surrogate outcomes in randomised clinical trials: cohort studyBMJYear: 2010341c365310.1136/bmj.c365320719823
Sutton AJ,Duval SJ,Tweedie RL,Abrams KR,Jones DR,Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analysesBMJYear: 20003201574157710.1136/bmj.320.7249.157410845965
Egger M,Smith GD,Bias in location and selection of studiesBMJYear: 1998316616610.1136/bmj.316.7124.619451274
Gil RJ,Pawlowski T,Dudek D,Horszczaruk G,Zmudka K,Lesiak M,Witkowski A,Ochała A,Kubica J,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 resultsAm Heart JYear: 200715466967510.1016/j.ahj.2007.06.01717892989
Gaster AL,Slothuus SU,Larsen J,Korsholm L,Von BC,Jensen S,Thayssen P,Pedersen KE,Haghfelt TH,Continued improvement of clinical outcome and cost effectiveness following intravascular ultrasound guided PCI: insights from a prospective, randomised studyHeartYear: 2003891043104910.1136/heart.89.9.104312923023
Schiele F,Meneveau N,Vuillemenot A,Zhang DD,Gupta S,Mercier M,Danchin N,Bertrand B,Bassand JP,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 STentingJ Am Coll CardiolYear: 19983232032810.1016/S0735-1097(98)00249-69708456
Schiele F,Meneveau N,Seronde MF,Caulfield F,Pisa B,Arveux P,Danchin N,Bassand JP,Medical costs of intravascular ultrasound optimization of stent deployment. Results of the multicenter randomized 'REStenosis after Intravascular ultrasound STenting' (RESIST) studyInt J Cardiovasc InterventYear: 2000320721312431345
Oemrawsingh PV,Mintz GS,Schalij MJ,Zwinderman AH,Jukema JW,van der Wall EE,Intravascular ultrasound guidance improves angiographic and clinical outcome of stent implantation for long coronary artery stenoses: final results of a randomized comparison with angiographic guidance (TULIP Study)CirculationYear: 2003107626710.1161/01.CIR.0000043240.87526.3F12515744
Russo RJ,Silva PD,Teirstein PS,Attubato MJ,Davidson CJ,DeFranco AC,Fitzgerald PJ,Goldberg SL,Hermiller JB,Leon MB,Ling FS,Lucisano JE,Schatz RA,Wong SC,Weissman NJ,Zientek DM,AVID InvestigatorsA randomized controlled trial of angiography versus intravascular ultrasound-directed bare-metal coronary stent placement (the AVID Trial)Circ Cardiovasc IntervYear: 2009211312310.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.108.77864720031704
Mudra H,Di MC,De JP,Figulla HR,Macaya C,Zahn R,Wennerblom B,Rutsch W,Voudris V,Regar E,Henneke KH,Schächinger V,Zeiher A,OPTICUS (OPTimization with ICUS to reduce stent restenosis) Study InvestigatorsRandomized comparison of coronary stent implantation under ultrasound or angiographic guidance to reduce stent restenosis (OPTICUS Study)CirculationYear: 20011041343134910.1161/hc3701.09606411560848
Frey AW,Hodgson JM,Muller C,Bestehorn HP,Roskamm H,Ultrasound-guided strategy for provisional stenting with focal balloon combination catheter: results from the randomized Strategy for Intracoronary Ultrasound-guided PTCA and Stenting (SIPS) trialCirculationYear: 20001022497250210.1161/01.CIR.102.20.249711076823
Mueller C,Hodgson JM,Schindler C,Perruchoud AP,Roskamm H,Buettner HJ,Cost-effectiveness of intracoronary ultrasound for percutaneous coronary interventionsAm J CardiolYear: 20039114314710.1016/S0002-9149(02)03099-012521624
Al SJ,Holmes DR Jr,Salam AM,Lennon R,Berger PB,Impact of coronary artery stents on mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction: meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing a strategy of routine stenting with that of balloon angioplastyAm Heart JYear: 200414781582210.1016/j.ahj.2003.11.02515131536
Colombo A,De GJ,Moussa I,Kobayashi Y,Karvouni E,Di MC,Di Mario C,Albiero R,Finci L,Moses J,Intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty with provisional spot stenting for treatment of long coronary lesionsJ Am Coll CardiolYear: 2001381427143310.1016/S0735-1097(01)01557-111691519
Orford JL,Lerman A,Holmes DR,Routine intravascular ultrasound guidance of percutaneous coronary intervention: a critical reappraisalJ Am Coll CardiolYear: 2004431335134210.1016/j.jacc.2003.12.03515093863
Biondi-Zoccai G,Sheiban I,Romagnoli E,De SS,Tamburino C,Colombo A,Burzotta F,Presbitero P,Bolognese L,Paloscia L,Rubino P,Sardella G,Briguori C,Niccoli L,Franco G,Di Girolamo D,Piatti L,Greco C,Capodanno D,Sangiorgi G,Is intravascular ultrasound beneficial for percutaneous coronary intervention of bifurcation lesions? Evidence from a 4,314-patient registryClin Res CardiolYear: 20111001021102810.1007/s00392-011-0336-x21701872
Jakabcin J,Spacek R,Bystron M,Kvasnak M,Jager J,Veselka J,Kala P,Cervinka P,Long-term health outcome and mortality evaluation after invasive coronary treatment using drug eluting stents with or without the IVUS guidanceRandomized control trial. HOME DES IVUS. Catheter Cardiovasc IntervYear: 201075578583
Lagerqvist B,Husted S,Kontny F,Stahle E,Swahn E,Wallentin L,5-year outcomes in the FRISC-II randomised trial of an invasive versus a non-invasive strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: a follow-up studyLancetYear: 2006368998100410.1016/S0140-6736(06)69416-616980115
Fox KA,Poole-Wilson PA,Henderson RA,Clayton TC,Chamberlain DA,Shaw TR,Wheatley DJ,Pocock SJ,Randomized Intervention Trial of unstable Angina InvestigatorsInterventional versus conservative treatment for patients with unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation RITA 3 randomised trial. Randomized Intervention Trial of unstable AnginaLancetYear: 200236074375110.1016/S0140-6736(02)09894-X12241831
Fox KA,Clayton TC,Damman P,Pocock SJ,de Winter RJ,Tijssen JG,Lagerqvist B,Wallentin L,FIR CollaborationLong-term outcome of a routine versus selective invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome a meta-analysis of individual patient dataJ Am Coll CardiolYear: 2010552435244510.1016/j.jacc.2010.03.00720359842
Boden WE,O'Rourke RA,Teo KK,Hartigan PM,Maron DJ,Kostuk WJ,Knudtson M,Dada M,Casperson P,Harris CL,Chaitman BR,Shaw L,Gosselin G,Nawaz S,Title LM,Gau G,Blaustein AS,Booth DC,Bates ER,Spertus JA,Berman DS,Mancini GB,Weintraub WS,COURAGE Trial Research GroupOptimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary diseaseN Engl J MedYear: 20073561503151610.1056/NEJMoa07082917387127
Serruys PW,Kay IP,Disco C,Deshpande NV,de Feyter PJ,Periprocedural quantitative coronary angiography after Palmaz-Schatz stent implantation predicts the restenosis rate at six months: results of a meta-analysis of the BElgian NEtherlands Stent study (BENESTENT) I, BENESTENT II Pilot. BENESTENT II and MUSIC trials. Multicenter Ultrasound Stent In CoronariesJ Am Coll CardiolYear: 1999341067107410.1016/S0735-1097(99)00308-310520792
Uchida T,Popma J,Stone GW,Ellis SG,Turco MA,Ormiston JA,Muramatsu T,Nakamura M,Nanto S,Yokoi H,Baim DS,The clinical impact of routine angiographic follow-up in randomized trials of drug-eluting stents: a critical assessment of "oculostenotic" reintervention in patients with intermediate lesionsJACC Cardiovasc IntervYear: 2010340341110.1016/j.jcin.2010.01.01020398868
Topol EJ,Coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarctionAnn Intern MedYear: 19881099709802973762
Vaitkus PT,Brar C,N-acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: publication bias perpetuated by meta-analysesAm Heart JYear: 200715327528010.1016/j.ahj.2006.09.01417239689
Dawn AG,Balkrishnan R,Feldman SR,Systematic selection bias: a cause of dramatic errors in the inference of treatment effectivenessJ Dermatolog TreatYear: 200819687110.1080/0954663070187078018484425
Ioannidis JP,Meta-research: The art of getting it wrongRes Syn MethYear: 2010116918410.1002/jrsm.19
Roseman M,Milette K,Bero LA,Coyne JC,Lexchin J,Turner EH,Thombs BD,Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatmentsJAMAYear: 20113051008101710.1001/jama.2011.25721386079
Moynihan R,It's time to rebuild the evidence baseBMJYear: 2011342d300410.1136/bmj.d300421613342
Jorgensen AW,Maric KL,Tendal B,Faurschou A,Gotzsche PC,Industry-supported meta-analyses compared with meta-analyses with non-profit or no support: differences in methodological quality and conclusionsBMC Med Res MethodolYear: 200886010.1186/1471-2288-8-6018782430

Figures

[Figure ID: F1]
Figure 1 

Article selection flowchart. Flowchart based on the PRISMA Flow Diagram [14].



[Figure ID: F2]
Figure 2 

Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill test. The funnel plot shows the observed studies (white circles) and the imputed studies (black circles) in addition to the observed (white diamond) and adjusted combined effect (black diamond).



[Figure ID: F3]
Figure 3 

Meta-analysis by outcomes (random effects). (A) Death. (B) Myocardial infarction (MI). (C) Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).



[Figure ID: F4]
Figure 4 

Original data from the re-evaluated meta-analysis - MACE[13].



[Figure ID: F5]
Figure 5 

Cumulative meta-analysis. Each line includes the combined analysis of the corresponding study and the other ones above. The studies were added from largest to smallest sample size.



[Figure ID: F6]
Figure 6 

One-study-removed method. Each line excludes the corresponding study from the combined analysis.



Tables
[TableWrap ID: T1] Table 1 

Patient characteristics


Study
DIPOL
AVID
RESIST
TULIP
OPTICUS
  IVUS QCA IVUS QCA IVUS QCA IVUS QCA IVUS QCA
Demographic characteristics
Patients, n
83
80
369
375
79
76
73
71
273
275
Age. years, mean ± SD
56 ± 8
54 ± 8
62 ± 12
63 ± 11
57 ± 10
56 ± 12
63 ± 10
61 ± 10
60.1 ± 10
61.5 ± 9.5
Men,%
71
73
73
68
86
93
71
72
77
78
Smoker,%
47
52
-
-
55
51
40
43
0.69
0.66
Previous MI,%
44
40
35
29
54
48
-
-
0.32
0.32
Previous CABG,%
-
-
18
20
-
-
-
-
0.03
0.04
Previous PCI,%
-
-
24
25
-
-
-
-
0.2
0.2
Diabetes mellitus.%
10
11
15
17
9
8
21
16
0.17
0.17
Dyslipidemia,%
47
40
40
44
54
52
62
61
0.61
0.67
Hypertension,%
-
-
46
45
24
26
30
27
0.48
0.52
LV ejection fraction,%, mean ± SD
52 ± 9
48 ± 10
53 ± 13
55 ± 13
51 ± 9
53 ± 13
-
-
56.5 ± 14
57.7 ± 14.3
Angiographic characteristics
Target vessel,%
- Left anterior descending artery
41
46
40
37
48
47
39
38
51
50
- Left circumflex artery
26
24
15
18
11
11
10
21
18
14
- Right coronary artery
33
30
35
32
41
42
51
41
30
35
- Left main coronary artery
-
-
0.8
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
Lesion length, mm, mean ± SD
N/A
N/A
13.0 ± 7.7
13.3 ± 9.2
7.7 ± 3.5
8.0 ± 4.0
27.0 ± 9
29.0 ± 10
11.9 ± 5.1
11.6 ± 5.5
Reference diameter, mm, mean ± SD
3.21 ± 0.64
3.19 ± 0.59
3.05 ± 0.64
3.00 ± 0.54
3.0 ± 0.64*
2.89 ± 0.54*
2.95 ± 0.57
2.96 ± 0.53
2.97 ± 0.53
3.01 ± 0.51
Type B2 or C ACC/AHA lesions,%
13
10
N/A
N/A
43
48
100
100
76
78
Pre-intervention
- Minimum lumen diameter, mm, mean ± SD
0.97 ± 0.33
0.95 ± 0.32
1.11 ± 0.5
1.09 ± 0.47
0.96 ± 0.37
1.02 ± 0.44
1.02 ± 0.42
0.99 ± 0.41
0.96 ± 0.35
0.99 ± 0.34
- Diameter stenosis,%, mean ± SD
69.7 ± 14.2
70.2 ± 11.4
63.4 ± 14.1
63.5 ± 14.3
65.0 ± 11.0
64.0 ± 12.0
65.0 ± 13.0
65.0 ± 10.0
67.6 ± 11.2
66.7 ± 10.1
Post-intervention
- Minimum lumen diameter, mm, mean ± SD
3.34 ± 0.55
3.06 ± 0.52
2.93 ± 0.55
2.87 ± 0.48
2.48 ± 0.43
2.46 ± 0.46
3.01 ± 0.40
2.80 ± 0.31
3.02 ± 0.49
2.91 ± 0.41
- Diameter stenosis,%, mean ± SD 3.4 ± 2.9 8.9 ± 5.4 N/A N/A 19.0 ± 10.0 19.0 ± 9.0 12.0 ± 7.0 13.0 ± 9.0 2.8 ± 7.8 6.0 ± 8.0

* In the RESIST study, the reference diameter average was calculated. MI, myocardial infarction; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; LV, left ventricular; ACA, American College of Cardiology; AHA, American Heart Association; IVUS, intravascular ultrasound; N/A, not applicable, QCA, Quantitative Coronary Angiography.


[TableWrap ID: T2] Table 2 

Study characteristics


Study DIPOL AVID RESIST TULIP OPTICUS
Enrolling years
2000 to 2002
1995 to 1998
1995 to 1997
1991 to 2001
1996 to 1998
Randomized
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
- Blinded?
Yes
Yes
N/A
N/A
Yes
- When?
Pre-intervention
Pre-intervention
Post-intervention
Pre-intervention
Pre-intervention
Intention-to-treat analysis
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Exclusion criteria
- Long lesions
Yes (> 25 mm)
No
Yes (> 15 mm)
No
Yes (> 25 mm)
- Bifurcation
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
- Left main coronary artery
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
- Chronic total occlusion
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
- Recent acute coronary syndrome
Yes
No (except MI with TIMI flow grade < 3)
Yes
Yes
Yes
- Small vessels
Yes (≤ 2.75 mm)
Yes (< 2.5 mm)
Yes (< 3 mm)
Yes (< 3 mm)
Yes (< 2.5 mm)
- Others
Age < 18 and > 70 y; extensive calcification; saphenous vein graft lesions
Age < 18 y; non-covered dissection; large vessels (> 3.25 mm)
Previous CABG
Focal (< 20 mm) or ostial lesions
 
Pre-intervention IVUS
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Post-intervention IVUS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
PCI success criteria
Stent CSA/average CSA > 80%, complete apposition, stent CSA > 7.5 mm2
Stent CSA/distal CSA > 90%, complete apposition, no dissection
Stent CSA/average CSA > 80%
Stent MLD/average MLD > 80%, complete apposition, stent CSA ≥ distal CSA
Stenosis < 10% and MUSIC study criteria [10]
- PCI success by IVUS,%
96
63
61
89
82.2 and 56 (MUSIC)
Clinical follow-up, months
6
12
18
12
12
Angiographic follow-up, months
6*
 
6 (com USIC)
6
6
MACE Death, nonfatal MI, repeat revascularization Without explicit criteria Death, repeat revascularization Death, nonfatal MI, clinical TLR Death, nonfatal MI, repeat revascularization

*Angiographic follow-up was left to the discretion of the operator: 87.9% (IVUS-guided group) and 83.7% (angio-guided group). CABG or repeat PCI for any reason. IVUS, interventional ultrasound; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular events; CSA, cross sectional area; MI, myocardial infarction; TIMI, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; MLD, minimum lumen diameter; clinical TLR, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization.


[TableWrap ID: T3] Table 3 

Clinical Outcomes


Study DIPOL AVID RESIST TULIP OPTICUS Total
 
IVUS
QCA
IVUS
QCA
IVUS
QCA
IVUS
QCA
IVUS
QCA
IVUS
QCA
Patients, n
83
80
369
375
79
76
73
71
273
275
877
877
Death, n (%)
1 (1.2)
1 (1.3)
12 (3.3)
7 (1.9)
1 (1.3)
1 (1.3)
2 (2.7)
1 (1.4)
5 (1.8)
1 (0.36)
21 (2.4)
11 (1.3)
Nonfatal MI, n (%)
1 (1.2)
4 (5)
25 (6.8)
19 (5.1)
N/A
N/A
1 (1.4)
5 (7.0)
6 (2.2)
10 (3.6)
33 (4.1) 1
38 (4.7) 1
MACE, n (%) 6 (7.2) 13 (16.2) 68 (18.4) 70 (18.7) 20 (25.3) 28 (36.8) 9 (12.3) 19 (26.8) 49 (17.9) 42 (15.3) 152 (17.3) 172 (19.6)

*The analysis of nonfatal MI excludes the RESIST Study, where this outcome was not calculated. MI, myocardial infarction; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular events; IVUS, interventional ultrasound.


[TableWrap ID: T4] Table 4 

Study funding and conflicts of interest of the authors of original articles included in this meta-analysis


Trial Industry funding Conflicts of interest (authors)
DIPOL
None declared
N/A
AVID
None declared
Accumetrics; Baxter; BDS; Boston Scientific; Cardium; Conor Medical; Cordis; Johnson & Johnson; Medtronic; Volcano
RESIST
None declared
N/A
TULIP
Medtronic; AVE
Boston Scientific; Guidant
OPTICUS Boston Scientific; Johnson & Johnson N/A

N/A, not applicable.



Article Categories:
  • Research

Keywords: Intravascular ultrasound, Meta-analysis, Publication bias, Bare-metal stent, Percutaneous coronary intervention, Coronary artery disease.

Previous Document:  A modified dilution method reveals higher protozoan growth rates than the size fractionation method.
Next Document:  The impact of forced displacement in World War II on mental health disorders and health-related qual...