IVUS has more robust data than OCT for PCI guidance: PROS and CONS.

Autores de IIS La Fe

• Jorge Sanz Sánchez

  Autor

Participantes ajenos a IIS La Fe

• Maehara, Akiko
• Garcia-Garcia, Hector M

Grupos

• Grupo de Investigación Clínica y Traslacional en Cardiología

  

  Investigador Principal

  Esther Roselló Lletí

Abstract

Coronary angiography has long been used to guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, it has limitations in accurately assessing atherosclerotic burden, vessel and lumen dimensions, stent morphology, and plaque characteristics. Intravascular imaging (IVI), including intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT), has been associated with improved assessment of lesion significance, optimised stent implantation and superior stent-related outcomes. IVUS and OCT have distinct characteristics, such as penetration depth and axial resolution, that may make each of them more suitable for specific scenarios. Current evidence on PCI guidance mainly consists of studies comparing IVI to angiography, with direct comparisons of IVUS and OCT with respect to clinical endpoints being quite limited. As such, whether the use of either IVUS or OCT to guide PCI leads to better post-PCI outcomes remains an area of uncertainty.

Keywords

• ELUTING STENT IMPLANTATION