Intravascular Ultrasound

Chapter

Abstract

Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) has evolved as the first clinical imaging modality to directly visualize vessel wall pathology. Because the ultrasound signal is able to penetrate the vessel wall, the entire cross-section can be interrogated in real time; biological processes such as plaque burden, plaque composition, vessel remodeling, and restenosis can be assessed. In addition, IVUS provides optimal guidance for interventional procedures. Along with the progress in interventional technology and increasing complexity of interventional sites in aging populations, IVUS continues to play a vital role in improving outcomes. Current technology in invasive imaging has two main aims: further improvement of spatial and tissue resolution, and physiologic assessment of the target sites. Achievement of these aims helps to optimize the quality and outcomes of catheter-based cardiovascular interventions.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Heidi N. Bonneau, RN, MS, CCA, and M. Brooke Hollak, RN, BAHSA, for expert review and editing advice.

References

  1. 1.
    Sones FM Jr, SHIREY EK. Cine coronary arteriography. Mod Concepts Cardiovasc Dis. 1962;31:735–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bom N, Lancée CT, van Egmond FC. An ultrasonic intracardiac scanner. Ultrasonics. 1972;10:72–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yock P, Linker D, Saether O, Thapliyal H, Arenson J, White N, Ports T, Angelsen B. Intravascular two-dimensional catheter ultrasound: initial clinical studies. Circulation. 1988;78:II–21.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fitzgerald PJ, St Goar FG, Connolly AJ, et al. Intravascular ultrasound imaging of coronary arteries. Is three layers the norm? Circulation. 1992;86:154–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mintz GS, Nissen SE, Anderson WD, et al. American College of Cardiology clinical expert consensus document on standards for acquisition, measurement and reporting of intravascular ultrasound studies (IVUS). A report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37:1478–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Glagov S, Weisenberg E, Zarins CK, Stankunavicius R, Kolettis GJ. Compensatory enlargement of human atherosclerotic coronary arteries. N Engl J Med. 1987;316:1371–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schoenhagen P, Ziada KM, Kapadia SR, Crowe TD, Nissen SE, Tuzcu EM. Extent and direction of arterial remodeling in stable versus unstable coronary syndromes: an intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation. 2000;101:598–603.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Honda Y, Fitzgerald PJ. Frontiers in intravascular imaging technologies. Circulation. 2008;117:2024–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gardner CM, Tan H, Hull EL, et al. Detection of lipid core coronary plaques in autopsy specimens with a novel catheter-based near-infrared spectroscopy system. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008;1:638–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Waxman S, Dixon SR, L'Allier P, et al. In vivo validation of a catheter-based near-infrared spectroscopy system for detection of lipid core coronary plaques: initial results of the SPECTACL study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:858–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Siegel RJ, Ariani M, Fishbein MC, et al. Histopathologic validation of angioscopy and intravascular ultrasound. Circulation. 1991;84:109–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maehara A, Mintz GS, Ahmed JM, et al. An intravascular ultrasound classification of angiographic coronary artery aneurysms. Am J Cardiol. 2001;88:365–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kearney P, Erbel R, Rupprecht HJ, et al. Differences in the morphology of unstable and stable coronary lesions and their impact on the mechanisms of angioplasty. An in vivo study with intravascular ultrasound. Eur Heart J. 1996;17:721–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee SY, Mintz GS, Kim S-Y, et al. Attenuated plaque detected by intravascular ultrasound: clinical, angiographic, and morphologic features and post-percutaneous coronary intervention complications in patients with acute coronary syndromes. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:65–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rioufol G, Finet G, Ginon I, et al. Multiple atherosclerotic plaque rupture in acute coronary syndrome: a three-vessel intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation. 2002;106:804–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fujii K, Kobayashi Y, Mintz GS, et al. Intravascular ultrasound assessment of ulcerated ruptured plaques: a comparison of culprit and nonculprit lesions of patients with acute coronary syndromes and lesions in patients without acute coronary syndromes. Circulation. 2003;108:2473–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yamada R, Okura H, Kume T, et al. Relationship between arterial and fibrous cap remodeling: a serial three-vessel intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography study. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:484–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stone GW, Maehara A, Lansky AJ, et al. A prospective natural-history study of coronary atherosclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:226–35.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Calvert PA, Obaid DR, O'Sullivan M, et al. Association between IVUS findings and adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease: the VIVA (VH-IVUS in Vulnerable Atherosclerosis) study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:894–901.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Madder RD, Smith JL, Dixon SR, Goldstein JA. Composition of target lesions by near-infrared spectroscopy in patients with acute coronary syndrome versus stable angina. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5:55–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Madder RD, Goldstein JA, Madden SP, et al. Detection by near-infrared spectroscopy of large lipid core plaques at culprit sites in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:838–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Choi B-J, Prasad A, Gulati R, et al. Coronary endothelial dysfunction in patients with early coronary artery disease is associated with the increase in intravascular lipid core plaque. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:2047–54.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roleder T, Kovacic JC, Ali Z, et al. Combined NIRS and IVUS imaging detects vulnerable plaque using a single catheter system: a head-to-head comparison with OCT. EuroIntervention. 2014;10:303–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kang S-J, Mintz GS, Pu J, et al. Combined IVUS and NIRS detection of fibroatheromas: histopathological validation in human coronary arteries. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:184–94.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Birgelen von C, Hartmann M, Mintz GS, et al. Relationship between cardiovascular risk as predicted by established risk scores versus plaque progression as measured by serial intravascular ultrasound in left main coronary arteries. Circulation. 2004;110:1579–85.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nissen SE, Tardif JC, Nicholls SJ. Effect of torcetrapib on the progression of coronary atherosclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1304–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kawasaki M, Sano K, Okubo M, et al. Volumetric quantitative analysis of tissue characteristics of coronary plaques after statin therapy using three-dimensional integrated backscatter intravascular ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:1946–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kini AS, Baber U, Kovacic JC, et al. Changes in plaque lipid content after short-term intensive versus standard statin therapy: the YELLOW trial (Reduction in Yellow Plaque by Aggressive Lipid-Lowering Therapy). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:21–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stone GW, Hodgson JM, St Goar FG, et al. Improved procedural results of coronary angioplasty with intravascular ultrasound-guided balloon sizing: the CLOUT pilot trial. Clinical Outcomes With Ultrasound Trial (CLOUT) Investigators. Circulation. 1997;95:2044–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schiele F, Meneveau N, Gilard M, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-guided balloon angioplasty compared with stent: immediate and 6-month results of the multicenter, randomized Balloon Equivalent to Stent Study (BEST). Circulation. 2003;107:545–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chieffo A, Latib A, Caussin C, et al. A prospective, randomized trial of intravascular-ultrasound guided compared to angiography guided stent implantation in complex coronary lesions: the AVIO trial. Am Heart J. 2013;165:65–72.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Costa MA, Angiolillo DJ, Tannenbaum M, et al. Impact of stent deployment procedural factors on long-term effectiveness and safety of sirolimus-eluting stents (final results of the multicenter prospective STLLR trial). Am J Cardiol. 2008;101:1704–11.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Moreno R, Fernández C, Hernandez R, et al. Drug-eluting stent thrombosis: results from a pooled analysis including 10 randomized studies. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:954–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hong M-K, Mintz GS, Lee CW, et al. Intravascular ultrasound predictors of angiographic restenosis after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation. Eur Heart J. 2006;27:1305–10.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Morino Y, Tamiya S, Masuda N, et al. Intravascular ultrasound criteria for determination of optimal longitudinal positioning of sirolimus-eluting stents. Circ J. 2010;74:1609–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kasaoka S, Tobis JM, Akiyama T, et al. Angiographic and intravascular ultrasound predictors of in-stent restenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32:1630–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cheneau E, Leborgne L, Mintz GS, et al. Predictors of subacute stent thrombosis: results of a systematic intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation. 2003;108:43–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Uren N. Predictors and outcomes of stent thrombosis. An intravascular ultrasound registry. Eur Heart J. 2002;23:124–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fujii K, Carlier SG, Mintz GS, et al. Stent underexpansion and residual reference segment stenosis are related to stent thrombosis after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation: an intravascular ultrasound study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:995–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Okabe T, Mintz GS, Buch AN, et al. Intravascular ultrasound parameters associated with stent thrombosis after drug-eluting stent deployment. Am J Cardiol. 2007;100:615–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sonoda S, Morino Y, Ako J, et al. Impact of final stent dimensions on long-term results following sirolimus-eluting stent implantation: serial intravascular ultrasound analysis from the SIRIUS trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:1959–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Morino Y, Honda Y, Okura H, et al. An optimal diagnostic threshold for minimal stent area to predict target lesion revascularization following stent implantation in native coronary lesions. Am J Cardiol. 2001;88:301–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Doi H, Maehara A, Mintz GS, et al. Impact of post-intervention minimal stent area on 9-month follow-up patency of paclitaxel-eluting stents: an integrated intravascular ultrasound analysis from the TAXUS IV, V, and VI and TAXUS ATLAS Workhorse, Long Lesion, and Direct Stent Trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:1269–75.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Song HG, Kang S-J, Ahn J-M, et al. Intravascular ultrasound assessment of optimal stent area to prevent in-stent restenosis after zotarolimus-, everolimus-, and sirolimus-eluting stent implantation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;83:873–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sheris SJ, Canos MR, Weissman NJ. Natural history of intravascular ultrasound-detected edge dissections from coronary stent deployment. Am Heart J. 2000;139:59–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nishida T, Colombo A, Briguori C, et al. Outcome of nonobstructive residual dissections detected by intravascular ultrasound following percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2002;89:1257–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Castagna MT, Mintz GS, Leiboff BO, et al. The contribution of “mechanical” problems to in-stent restenosis: an intravascular ultrasonographic analysis of 1090 consecutive in-stent restenosis lesions. Am Heart J. 2001;142:970–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kang S-J, Mintz GS, Park D-W, et al. Mechanisms of in-stent restenosis after drug-eluting stent implantation: intravascular ultrasound analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:9–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sakurai R, Ako J, Hassan AHM, et al. Neointimal progression and luminal narrowing in sirolimus-eluting stent treatment for bare metal in-stent restenosis: a quantitative intravascular ultrasound analysis. Am Heart J. 2007;154:361–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Doi H, Maehara A, Mintz GS, et al. Impact of in-stent minimal lumen area at 9 months poststent implantation on 3-year target lesion revascularization-free survival: a serial intravascular ultrasound analysis from the TAXUS IV, V, and VI trials. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;1:111–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hassan AKM, Bergheanu SC, Stijnen T, et al. Late stent malapposition risk is higher after drug-eluting stent compared with bare-metal stent implantation and associates with late stent thrombosis. Eur Heart J. 2010;31:1172–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ako J, Morino Y, Honda Y, et al. Late incomplete stent apposition after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation: a serial intravascular ultrasound analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:1002–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Honda Y. Drug-eluting stents. Insights from invasive imaging technologies. Circ J. 2009;73:1371–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Doi H, Maehara A, Mintz GS, et al. Classification and potential mechanisms of intravascular ultrasound patterns of stent fracture. Am J Cardiol. 2009;103:818–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Park S-J, Kim Y-H, Park D-W, et al. Impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance on long-term mortality in stenting for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:167–77.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kim J-S, Hong M-K, Ko Y-G, et al. Impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance on long-term clinical outcomes in patients treated with drug-eluting stent for bifurcation lesions: data from a Korean multicenter bifurcation registry. Am Heart J. 2011;161:180–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kim J-S, Kang T-S, Mintz GS, et al. Randomized comparison of clinical outcomes between intravascular ultrasound and angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation for long coronary artery stenoses. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:369–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hong S-J, Kim B-K, Shin D-H, et al. Effect of intravascular ultrasound-guided vs angiography-guided everolimus-eluting stent implantation: the IVUS-XPL randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:1–9.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Witzenbichler B, Maehara A, Weisz G, et al. Relationship between intravascular ultrasound guidance and clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stents: the Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy with Drug-Eluting Stents (ADAPT-DES) study. Circulation. 2014;129:463–70.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    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 stenting. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2003;59:314–21.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    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 era. Am J Cardiol. 2011;107:374–82.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Jang J-S, Song Y-J, Kang W, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-guided implantation of drug-eluting stents to improve outcome: a meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:233–43.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Alsidawi S, Effat M, Rahman S, Abdallah M, Leesar M. The role of vascular imaging in guiding routine percutaneous coronary interventions: a meta-analysis of bare metal stent and drug-eluting stent trials. Cardiovasc Ther. 2015;33:360–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Zhang Y, Farooq V, Garcia-Garcia HM, et al. Comparison of intravascular ultrasound versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation: a meta-analysis of one randomised trial and ten observational studies involving 19,619 patients. EuroIntervention. 2012;8:855–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Tonino PAL, De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:213–24.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Abizaid AS, Mintz GS, Mehran R, et al. Long-term follow-up after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty was not performed based on intravascular ultrasound findings: importance of lumen dimensions. Circulation. 1999;100:256–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Mintz GS. Clinical utility of intravascular imaging and physiology in coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:207–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Hong YJ, Mintz GS, Kim S-W, et al. Impact of plaque composition on cardiac troponin elevation after percutaneous coronary intervention: an ultrasound analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:458–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Goldstein JA, Maini B, Dixon SR, et al. Detection of lipid-core plaques by intracoronary near-infrared spectroscopy identifies high risk of periprocedural myocardial infarction. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:429–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Hermiller JB, Tenaglia AN, Kisslo KB, et al. In vivo validation of compensatory enlargement of atherosclerotic coronary arteries. Am J Cardiol. 1993;71:665–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Gerber TC, Erbel R, Gorge G, Ge J, Rupprecht HJ, Meyer J. Extent of atherosclerosis and remodeling of the left main coronary artery determined by intravascular ultrasound. Am J Cardiol. 1994;73:666–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Sano K, Mintz GS, Carlier SG, et al. Assessing intermediate left main coronary lesions using intravascular ultrasound. Am Heart J. 2007;154:983–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Oviedo C, Maehara A, Mintz GS, et al. Intravascular ultrasound classification of plaque distribution in left main coronary artery bifurcations: where is the plaque really located? Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:105–12.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Jasti V, Ivan E, Yalamanchili V, Wongpraparut N, Leesar MA. Correlations between fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound in patients with an ambiguous left main coronary artery stenosis. Circulation. 2004;110:2831–6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Kang S-J, Lee J-Y, Ahn J-M, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-derived predictors for fractional flow reserve in intermediate left main disease. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:1168–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    de la Torre Hernandez JM, Hernández-Hernández F, Alfonso F, et al. Prospective application of pre-defined intravascular ultrasound criteria for assessment of intermediate left main coronary artery lesions results from the multicenter LITRO study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:351–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Fassa A-A, Wagatsuma K, Higano ST, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-guided treatment for angiographically indeterminate left main coronary artery disease: a long-term follow-up study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:204–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Abizaid AS, Mintz GS, Abizaid A, et al. One-year follow-up after intravascular ultrasound assessment of moderate left main coronary artery disease in patients with ambiguous angiograms. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34:707–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Okabe T, Mintz GS, Lee SY, et al. Five-year outcomes of moderate or ambiguous left main coronary artery disease and the intravascular ultrasound predictors of events. J Invasive Cardiol. 2008;20:635–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Hahn J-Y, Song YB, Lee S-Y, et al. Serial intravascular ultrasound analysis of the main and side branches in bifurcation lesions treated with the T-stenting technique. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:110–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Song YB, Hahn J-Y, Choi S-H, et al. Sirolimus- versus paclitaxel-eluting stents for the treatment of coronary bifurcations results: from the COBIS (Coronary Bifurcation Stenting) registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:1743–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Kim B-K, Shin D-H, Hong M-K, et al. Clinical impact of intravascular ultrasound-guided chronic total occlusion intervention with zotarolimus-eluting versus biolimus-eluting stent implantation: randomized study. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:e002592.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Abizaid A, Ribamar Costa J, Bartorelli AL, et al. The ABSORB EXTEND study: preliminary report of the twelve-month clinical outcomes in the first 512 patients enrolled. EuroIntervention. 2015;10:1396–401.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Diletti R, Karanasos A, Muramatsu T, et al. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for treatment of patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: BVS STEMI first study. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:777–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Diletti R, Onuma Y, Farooq V, et al. 6-month clinical outcomes following implantation of the bioresorbable everolimus-eluting vascular scaffold in vessels smaller or larger than 2.5 mm. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:258–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Capodanno D, Gori T, Nef H, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in routine clinical practice: early and midterm outcomes from the European multicentre GHOST-EU registry. EuroIntervention. 2015;10:1144–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Puricel S, Cuculi F, Weissner M, et al. Bioresorbable coronary scaffold thrombosis: multicenter comprehensive analysis of clinical presentation, mechanisms, and predictors. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:921–31.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Cassese S, Byrne RA, Ndrepepa G, et al. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2016;387:537–44.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Lipinski MJ, Escarcega RO, Baker NC, et al. Scaffold thrombosis after percutaneous coronary intervention with Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:12–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Suwannasom P, Sotomi Y, Ishibashi Y, et al. The impact of post-procedural asymmetry, expansion, and eccentricity of bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold and metallic everolimus-eluting stent on clinical outcomes in the ABSORB II trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:1231–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Ishibashi Y, Muramatsu T, Nakatani S, et al. Incidence and potential mechanism(s) of post-procedural rise of cardiac biomarker in patients with coronary artery narrowing after implantation of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold or everolimus-eluting metallic stent. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:1053–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Ellis SG, Kereiakes DJ, Metzger DC, et al. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1905–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Okada K, Kitahara H, Mitsutake Y, Kimura T, Miki K, Ikeno F, Yock P, Fitzgerald P, Honda Y. Assessment of bioresorbable scaffold struts with a novel high-definition 60 MHz IVUS imaging system: comparison with 40 MHz IVUS and optical coherence tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(13_S):255–5.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Okada K, Kitahara H, Mitsutake Y, Tanaka S, Yock P, Fitzgerald PJ, Ikeno F, Honda Y. Assessment of bioresorbable scaffold with a novel high-definition 60 MHz IVUS imaging system: comparison with conventional 40 MHz IVUS and optical coherence tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66(15_S):146–147.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Yamada R, Tremmel JA, Tanaka S, et al. Functional versus anatomic assessment of myocardial bridging by intravascular ultrasound: impact of arterial compression on proximal atherosclerotic plaque. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5:e001735.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Lee MS, Chen CH. Myocardial bridging: an up-to-date review. J Invasive Cardiol. 2015;27(11):521–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Tsujita K, Maehara A, Mintz GS, et al. Comparison of angiographic and intravascular ultrasonic detection of myocardial bridging of the left anterior descending coronary artery. Am J Cardiol. 2008;102:1608–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Yamada R, Turcott RG, Connolly AJ, et al. Histological characteristics of myocardial bridge with an ultrasonic echolucent band. Comparison between intravascular ultrasound and histology. Circ J. 2014;78:502–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Attaran S, Moscarelli M, Athanasiou T, Anderson J. Is coronary artery bypass grafting an acceptable alternative to myotomy for the treatment of myocardial bridging? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013;16:347–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Kobashigawa JA, Tobis JM, Starling RC, et al. Multicenter intravascular ultrasound validation study among heart transplant recipients: outcomes after five years. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:1532–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Tuzcu EM, Kapadia SR, Sachar R, et al. Intravascular ultrasound evidence of angiographically silent progression in coronary atherosclerosis predicts long-term morbidity and mortality after cardiac transplantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:1538–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Okada K, Kitahara H, Yang H-M, et al. Paradoxical vessel remodeling of the proximal segment of the left anterior descending artery predicts long-term mortality after heart transplantation. JACC Heart Fail. 2015;3:942–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Okada K, Fearon WF, Luikart H, et al. Attenuated-signal plaque progression predicts long-term mortality after heart transplantation: IVUS assessment of cardiac allograft vasculopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68:382–92.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Kitahara H, Okada K, Tanaka S, et al. Association of periarterial neovascularization with progression of cardiac allograft vasculopathy and long-term clinical outcomes in heart transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2016;35:752–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Ramasubbu K, Schoenhagen P, Balghith MA, et al. Repeated intravascular ultrasound imaging in cardiac transplant recipients does not accelerate transplant coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41:1739–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Takahashi T, Honda Y, Russo RJ, Fitzgerald PJ. Intravascular ultrasound and quantitative coronary angiography. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2002;55:118–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Albiero R, Rau T, Schluter M, et al. Comparison of immediate and intermediate-term results of intravascular ultrasound versus angiography-guided Palmaz-Schatz stent implantation in matched lesions. Circulation. 1997;96:2997–3005.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Blasini R, Neumann FJ, Schmitt C, Walter H, Schömig A. Restenosis rate after intravascular ultrasound-guided coronary stent implantation. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1998;44:380–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Choi JW, Goodreau LM, Davidson CJ. Resource utilization and clinical outcomes of coronary stenting: a comparison of intravascular ultrasound and angiographical guided stent implantation. Am Heart J. 2001;142:112–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Gaster AL, Slothuus Skjoldborg U, Larsen J, et al. Continued improvement of clinical outcome and cost effectiveness following intravascular ultrasound guided PCI: insights from a prospective, randomised study. Heart. 2003;89:1043–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Russo RJ, Silva PD, Teirstein PS, et al. A randomized controlled trial of angiography versus intravascular ultrasound-directed bare-metal coronary stent placement (the AVID Trial). Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:113–23.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Sousa A, Abizaid A, Mintz GS, et al. CENIC. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39:54A. (Abstr).Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Fitzgerald PJ, Oshima A, Hayase M, et al. Final results of the Can Routine Ultrasound Influence Stent Expansion (CRUISE) study. Circulation. 2000;102:523–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Gil RJ, Pawłowski T, Dudek D, et al. Comparison of angiographically guided direct stenting technique with direct stenting and optimal balloon angioplasty guided with intravascular ultrasound. The multicenter, randomized trial results. Am Heart J. 2007;154:669–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Mudra H, Di Mario C, de Jaegere P, et al. Randomized comparison of coronary stent implantation under ultrasound or angiographic guidance to reduce stent restenosis (OPTICUS study). Circulation. 2001;104:1343–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Orford JL, Denktas AE, Williams BA, et al. Routine intravascular ultrasound scanning guidance of coronary stenting is not associated with improved clinical outcomes. Am Heart J. 2004;148:501–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Schiele F, Meneveau N, Vuillemenot A, et al. 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 STenting. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32:320–8.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Frey AW, Hodgson JM, Müller 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) trial. Circulation. 2000;102:2497–502.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Oemrawsingh PV, Mintz GS, Schalij MJ, et al. 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). Circulation. 2003;107:62–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Agostoni P, Valgimigli M, van Mieghem CAG, et al. Comparison of early outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery disease in the drug-eluting stent era with versus without intravascular ultrasonic guidance. Am J Cardiol. 2005;95:644–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Chen S-L, Ye F, Zhang J-J, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-guided systematic two-stent techniques for coronary bifurcation lesions and reduced late stent thrombosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;81:456–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Costantini CO, Tarbine SG, Santos MF, et al. Am J Cardiol. 2008;102(suppl 1):161i.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Fujimoto H, Tao S, Dohi T, et al. Primary and mid-term outcome of sirolimus-eluting stent implantation with angiographic guidance alone. J Cardiol. 2008;51:18–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Hur SH, Kang S-J, Kim Y-H, et al. Impact of intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention on long-term clinical outcomes in a real world population. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;81:407–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Jakabčin J, Špaček R, Bystroň M, et al. Long-term health outcome and mortality evaluation after invasive coronary treatment using drug eluting stents with or without the IVUS guidance. Randomized control trial. HOME DES IVUS. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;75:578–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Kim S-H, Kim Y-H, Kang S-J, et al. Long-term outcomes of intravascular ultrasound-guided stenting in coronary bifurcation lesions. Am J Cardiol. 2010;106:612–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Roy P, Steinberg DH, Sushinsky SJ, et al. The potential clinical utility of intravascular ultrasound guidance in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents. Eur Heart J. 2008;29:1851–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Youn YJ, Yoon J, Lee J-W, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-guided primary percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Clin Cardiol. 2011;34:706–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Park K-W, Kang S-H, Yang H-M, et al. Impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance in routine percutaneous coronary intervention for conventional lesions: data from the EXCELLENT trial. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167:721–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Ahn J-M, Han S, Park YK, et al. Differential prognostic effect of intravascular ultrasound use according to implanted stent length. Am J Cardiol. 2013;111:829–35.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Claessen BE, Mehran R, Mintz GS, et al. Impact of intravascular ultrasound imaging on early and late clinical outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:974–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kozo Okada
    • 1
  • Peter J. Fitzgerald
    • 1
  • Yasuhiro Honda
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Cardiovascular MedicineStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations