4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      IVUS-Guided Versus OCT-Guided Coronary Stent Implantation

      , , , ,
      JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Procedural guidance with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) imaging improves the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) by: 1) informing the necessity for lesion preparation; 2) directing appropriate stent sizing to maximize the final stent area and minimize geographic miss; 3) selecting the optimal stent length to cover residual disease adjacent to the lesion, thus minimizing geographic miss; 4) guiding optimal stent expansion; 5) identifying acute complications (edge dissection, stent malapposition, tissue protrusion); and 6) clarifying the mechanism of late stent failure (stent thrombosis, neointimal hyperplasia, stent underexpansion or fracture, or neoatherosclerosis). Optical coherence tomography (OCT) provides similar information to IVUS (with some important differences), also potentially improving acute and long-term patient outcomes compared to angiography-guided PCI. The purpose of this review is to describe the similarities and differences between IVUS and OCT technologies, and to highlight the evidence supporting their utility to improve PCI outcomes.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
          JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
          Elsevier BV
          1936878X
          December 2017
          December 2017
          : 10
          : 12
          : 1487-1503
          Article
          10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.09.008
          29216976
          2f0b2b92-75a1-4605-ae1e-f6cd921159bf
          © 2017

          https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

          http://www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/

          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article