Impact of intravascular ultrasound on limb events in endovascular therapy for patients with peripheral arterial disease: insights from the TOMA-CODE registry.

IF 3.1 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Takahide Kodama, Masanari Kuwabara, Daisuke Ueshima, Tetsuo Yamaguchi, Yo Fujimoto, Toru Miyazaki, Atsushi Mizuno, Kenji Suzuki, Hitoshi Anzai, Michiaki Higashitani
{"title":"Impact of intravascular ultrasound on limb events in endovascular therapy for patients with peripheral arterial disease: insights from the TOMA-CODE registry.","authors":"Takahide Kodama, Masanari Kuwabara, Daisuke Ueshima, Tetsuo Yamaguchi, Yo Fujimoto, Toru Miyazaki, Atsushi Mizuno, Kenji Suzuki, Hitoshi Anzai, Michiaki Higashitani","doi":"10.1007/s12928-024-01079-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) has become a standard procedure for performing coronary intervention, but its impact on peripheral endovascular therapy (EVT) remains unclear. To assess the usefulness of IVUS during EVT, this study analyzed over 2000 consecutive patients from the TOkyo-taMA peripheral vascular intervention research COmraDE (TOMA-CODE) registry with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in Japan. The primary outcome was chronic limb events (a composite of clinically driven target lesion revascularization (cTLR) and major amputation) during a two-year follow-up period. The secondary outcomes included the procedural success rate, in-hospital major adverse limb events (MALE), and major cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Patients with and without IVUS were compared using propensity score matching. Among the 2227 eligible cases enrolled, with a median follow-up period of 10.4 months, there were no significant differences in limb events between IVUS (784 patients) and non-IVUS (1443 patients) groups during the follow-up period (15.4% vs. 14.4%, P = 0.53, unadjusted; 14.8% vs. 15.4%, P = 0.77, adjusted). In contrast, the IVUS group had higher procedural success rates (98.7% vs. 96.7%, P = 0.02) and lower in-hospital MALE (1.6% vs. 4.1%, P = 0.01), even after multiple adjustments. Additionally, there was no significant difference in the MACCE incidence (10.9% vs. 12.2%, P = 0.47) between the groups. This study demonstrated that IVUS usage did not reduce the occurrence of limb events among EVT patients in the chronic phase, but IVUS may improve in-hospital outcomes. Further research is necessary to verify these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":9439,"journal":{"name":"Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12928-024-01079-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) has become a standard procedure for performing coronary intervention, but its impact on peripheral endovascular therapy (EVT) remains unclear. To assess the usefulness of IVUS during EVT, this study analyzed over 2000 consecutive patients from the TOkyo-taMA peripheral vascular intervention research COmraDE (TOMA-CODE) registry with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in Japan. The primary outcome was chronic limb events (a composite of clinically driven target lesion revascularization (cTLR) and major amputation) during a two-year follow-up period. The secondary outcomes included the procedural success rate, in-hospital major adverse limb events (MALE), and major cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Patients with and without IVUS were compared using propensity score matching. Among the 2227 eligible cases enrolled, with a median follow-up period of 10.4 months, there were no significant differences in limb events between IVUS (784 patients) and non-IVUS (1443 patients) groups during the follow-up period (15.4% vs. 14.4%, P = 0.53, unadjusted; 14.8% vs. 15.4%, P = 0.77, adjusted). In contrast, the IVUS group had higher procedural success rates (98.7% vs. 96.7%, P = 0.02) and lower in-hospital MALE (1.6% vs. 4.1%, P = 0.01), even after multiple adjustments. Additionally, there was no significant difference in the MACCE incidence (10.9% vs. 12.2%, P = 0.47) between the groups. This study demonstrated that IVUS usage did not reduce the occurrence of limb events among EVT patients in the chronic phase, but IVUS may improve in-hospital outcomes. Further research is necessary to verify these findings.

血管内超声对外周动脉疾病患者血管内治疗中肢体事件的影响:来自TOMA-CODE注册的见解
血管内超声(IVUS)已成为冠状动脉介入治疗的标准方法,但其对周围血管内治疗(EVT)的影响尚不清楚。为了评估IVUS在EVT期间的有效性,本研究分析了日本东京-多摩外周血管干预研究同志(TOMA-CODE)登记的2000多例连续外周动脉疾病(PAD)患者。在两年的随访期间,主要结局是慢性肢体事件(临床驱动的靶病变血运重建(cTLR)和主要截肢的组合)。次要结局包括手术成功率、院内主要肢体不良事件(MALE)和主要心脑血管事件(MACCE)。采用倾向评分匹配法比较有IVUS和没有IVUS的患者。在纳入的2227例符合条件的病例中,中位随访时间为10.4个月,IVUS组(784例)和非IVUS组(1443例)在随访期间肢体事件发生率无显著差异(15.4% vs. 14.4%, P = 0.53,未经调整;14.8% vs. 15.4%, P = 0.77,调整后)。相比之下,IVUS组的手术成功率更高(98.7% vs. 96.7%, P = 0.02),住院MALE更低(1.6% vs. 4.1%, P = 0.01),即使经过多次调整。此外,两组间MACCE发生率无显著差异(10.9% vs. 12.2%, P = 0.47)。本研究表明,IVUS的使用并没有减少EVT患者慢性期肢体事件的发生,但IVUS可能改善住院预后。需要进一步的研究来证实这些发现。
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
Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics
Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics (CVIT) is an international journal covering the field of cardiovascular disease and includes cardiac (coronary and noncoronary) and peripheral interventions and therapeutics. Articles are subject to peer review and complete editorial evaluation prior to any decision regarding acceptability. CVIT is an official journal of The Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics.
×
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