The Role of Intravascular Ultrasound in Limb Salvage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Allen Gee, Arthur Tarricone, Lawrence A Lavery, Karlo A Wiley, Noell Palmieri, Samin Sharma, Prakash Krishnan
{"title":"The Role of Intravascular Ultrasound in Limb Salvage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Allen Gee, Arthur Tarricone, Lawrence A Lavery, Karlo A Wiley, Noell Palmieri, Samin Sharma, Prakash Krishnan","doi":"10.1177/15385744241292861","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to review the current literature of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) use in real world cohorts inclusive of chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) patients and compare the outcomes to patients imaged by angiography alone.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The systematic review was registered in Research Registry. A literature search was performed across 4 databases: PubMed, Medline/Embase, Cochrane Review, and Web of Science for eligible comparative studies. The primary outcomes examined were clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR), amputation (including minor below the ankle and major above the ankle), all-cause mortality, limb salvage and mean balloon dilation. A random effects model was used when pooling outcomes to account for heterogeneity. Publication bias was determined using eggers test and illustrated on a funnel plot.</p><p><strong>Main findings: </strong>Six studies were included in this review, with a total of 1883 subjects with Rutherford 1-6. Among the 1883 subjects, 940 had Rutherford 4-6. IVUS was used in 1294 subjects and angiography alone was used in 589 subjects. Pooled analysis determined no significant association in IVUS + angiography with CD-TLR (O.R = 1.43 [CI: 0.80, 2.58]), all-cause amputation (O.R = 0.63 [CI: 0.34, 1.17]), and all-cause mortality (O.R = 0.63 [CI: 0.34, 1.17]). Sub analysis of subjects with CLTI, Rutherford classes 4-6 showed an association between IVUS + angiography use with limb salvage at 1 year, O.R = 2.22 [1.24, 3.97].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of IVUS + angiography compared to angiography alone showed larger reference vessel diameter in both all-inclusive Rutherford classifications and the CLTI subset. The use of IVUS + angiography compared to angiography alone showed no difference in CD-TLR at 12 months, lower extremity amputation, and all-cause mortality for Rutherford 1-6. The use of IVUS + angiography compared to angiography alone in the CLTI subset analysis improved limb salvage.</p>","PeriodicalId":94265,"journal":{"name":"Vascular and endovascular surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vascular and endovascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15385744241292861","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to review the current literature of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) use in real world cohorts inclusive of chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) patients and compare the outcomes to patients imaged by angiography alone.

Methods: The systematic review was registered in Research Registry. A literature search was performed across 4 databases: PubMed, Medline/Embase, Cochrane Review, and Web of Science for eligible comparative studies. The primary outcomes examined were clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR), amputation (including minor below the ankle and major above the ankle), all-cause mortality, limb salvage and mean balloon dilation. A random effects model was used when pooling outcomes to account for heterogeneity. Publication bias was determined using eggers test and illustrated on a funnel plot.

Main findings: Six studies were included in this review, with a total of 1883 subjects with Rutherford 1-6. Among the 1883 subjects, 940 had Rutherford 4-6. IVUS was used in 1294 subjects and angiography alone was used in 589 subjects. Pooled analysis determined no significant association in IVUS + angiography with CD-TLR (O.R = 1.43 [CI: 0.80, 2.58]), all-cause amputation (O.R = 0.63 [CI: 0.34, 1.17]), and all-cause mortality (O.R = 0.63 [CI: 0.34, 1.17]). Sub analysis of subjects with CLTI, Rutherford classes 4-6 showed an association between IVUS + angiography use with limb salvage at 1 year, O.R = 2.22 [1.24, 3.97].

Conclusion: The use of IVUS + angiography compared to angiography alone showed larger reference vessel diameter in both all-inclusive Rutherford classifications and the CLTI subset. The use of IVUS + angiography compared to angiography alone showed no difference in CD-TLR at 12 months, lower extremity amputation, and all-cause mortality for Rutherford 1-6. The use of IVUS + angiography compared to angiography alone in the CLTI subset analysis improved limb salvage.

血管内超声在肢体救治中的作用:系统回顾与元分析》。
目的:本研究的目的是回顾血管内超声(IVUS)在包括慢性肢体缺血(CLTI)患者在内的真实世界队列中使用的现有文献,并将其结果与仅通过血管造影术成像的患者进行比较:系统综述已在研究注册中心注册。在 4 个数据库中进行了文献检索:PubMed、Medline/Embase、Cochrane Review 和 Web of Science 对符合条件的比较研究进行了文献检索。研究的主要结果包括临床驱动的靶病变血管再通(CD-TLR)、截肢(包括踝关节以下的轻度截肢和踝关节以上的重度截肢)、全因死亡率、肢体挽救率和平均球囊扩张率。为考虑异质性,在汇总结果时使用了随机效应模型。采用eggers检验确定发表偏倚,并在漏斗图中加以说明:本综述共纳入六项研究,共有1883名受试者接受了卢瑟福1-6期治疗。在这1883名受试者中,940人患有卢瑟福4-6级。1294名受试者使用了IVUS,589名受试者仅使用了血管造影术。汇总分析表明,IVUS + 血管造影与 CD-TLR(O.R = 1.43 [CI:0.80,2.58])、全因截肢(O.R = 0.63 [CI:0.34,1.17])和全因死亡率(O.R = 0.63 [CI:0.34,1.17])无明显关联。对患有CLTI、卢瑟福分级4-6级的受试者进行的子分析表明,使用IVUS+血管造影术与1年后的肢体挽救率有关,O.R = 2.22 [1.24,3.97]:结论:与单纯血管造影术相比,IVUS+血管造影术的使用在全纳卢瑟福分类和CLTI亚组中都显示出更大的参考血管直径。与单纯血管造影术相比,使用IVUS+血管造影术在12个月的CD-TLR、下肢截肢和卢瑟福1-6级全因死亡率方面没有差异。在CLTI亚组分析中,使用IVUS+血管造影与单纯血管造影相比,肢体挽救率有所提高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信