Cargando…

Comparison Between Optical Frequency Domain Imaging and Intravascular Ultrasound for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Guidance in Biolimus A9-Eluting Stent Implantation: A Randomized MISTIC-1 Non-Inferiority Trial

BACKGROUND: Given the characteristic differences between intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI), their approach to therapeutic guidance during percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) and arterial healing response after stenting may also vary. METHODS: MISTIC-1...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Muramatsu, Takashi, Ozaki, Yukio, Nanasato, Mamoru, Ishikawa, Masato, Nagasaka, Ryo, Ohota, Masaya, Hashimoto, Yosuke, Yoshiki, Yu, Takatsu, Hidemaro, Ito, Katsuyoshi, Kamiya, Hiroki, Yoshida, Yukihiko, Murohara, Toyoaki, Izawa, Hideo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7665240/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33106049
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.120.009314
_version_ 1783609981354901504
author Muramatsu, Takashi
Ozaki, Yukio
Nanasato, Mamoru
Ishikawa, Masato
Nagasaka, Ryo
Ohota, Masaya
Hashimoto, Yosuke
Yoshiki, Yu
Takatsu, Hidemaro
Ito, Katsuyoshi
Kamiya, Hiroki
Yoshida, Yukihiko
Murohara, Toyoaki
Izawa, Hideo
author_facet Muramatsu, Takashi
Ozaki, Yukio
Nanasato, Mamoru
Ishikawa, Masato
Nagasaka, Ryo
Ohota, Masaya
Hashimoto, Yosuke
Yoshiki, Yu
Takatsu, Hidemaro
Ito, Katsuyoshi
Kamiya, Hiroki
Yoshida, Yukihiko
Murohara, Toyoaki
Izawa, Hideo
author_sort Muramatsu, Takashi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Given the characteristic differences between intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI), their approach to therapeutic guidance during percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) and arterial healing response after stenting may also vary. METHODS: MISTIC-1 (The Multimodality Imaging Study in Cardiology cohort 1) is a multicenter, randomized-controlled, noninferiority trial that compared imaging end points between OFDI- and IVUS-guided PCI. Patients with stable coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to either OFDI- or IVUS-guided PCI using a Biolimus A9-eluting stent according to a prespecified protocol for imaging guidance. Stent sizing was based on external elastic lamina in IVUS-guided PCI while lumen up-size in OFDI-guided PCI. Postprocedural OFDI was investigated regardless of randomization, while operators in IVUS-guided PCI arm were blinded to the images. The primary end point was in-segment minimum lumen area assessed using OFDI at 8 months, while the secondary end point was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target-lesion revascularization (device-oriented composite end point). Patients were followed up to 3 years after the index procedure. RESULTS: A total of 109 patients (mean age 70 years, male 78%) with 126 lesions were enrolled. Postprocedural minimum stent area was 6.31±1.89 and 6.72±2.08 mm(2) in OFDI and IVUS group, respectively (P=0.26). At the 8-month follow-up, in-segment minimum lumen area was 4.56±1.94 and 4.13±1.86 mm(2) in OFDI and IVUS group, respectively (P(non-inferiority) <0.001). Both groups had comparable neointimal healing score (median 0.16 [interquartile range, 0.00–3.14] versus 0.90 [0.00–3.30], respectively; P=0.43). The incidence rate of device-oriented composite end point at 3 years was 7.4% and 7.3% in OFDI and IVUS group, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.26–4.18]; P=0.95). CONCLUSIONS: OFDI-guided PCI was not inferior to IVUS-guided PCI in terms of in-segment minimum lumen area at 8 months. Although a small sample size was acknowledged, OFDI could be an alternative to IVUS when considering intracoronary imaging-guided PCI in selected populations with coronary artery diseases. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03292081.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7665240
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76652402020-11-16 Comparison Between Optical Frequency Domain Imaging and Intravascular Ultrasound for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Guidance in Biolimus A9-Eluting Stent Implantation: A Randomized MISTIC-1 Non-Inferiority Trial Muramatsu, Takashi Ozaki, Yukio Nanasato, Mamoru Ishikawa, Masato Nagasaka, Ryo Ohota, Masaya Hashimoto, Yosuke Yoshiki, Yu Takatsu, Hidemaro Ito, Katsuyoshi Kamiya, Hiroki Yoshida, Yukihiko Murohara, Toyoaki Izawa, Hideo Circ Cardiovasc Interv Original Articles BACKGROUND: Given the characteristic differences between intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI), their approach to therapeutic guidance during percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) and arterial healing response after stenting may also vary. METHODS: MISTIC-1 (The Multimodality Imaging Study in Cardiology cohort 1) is a multicenter, randomized-controlled, noninferiority trial that compared imaging end points between OFDI- and IVUS-guided PCI. Patients with stable coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to either OFDI- or IVUS-guided PCI using a Biolimus A9-eluting stent according to a prespecified protocol for imaging guidance. Stent sizing was based on external elastic lamina in IVUS-guided PCI while lumen up-size in OFDI-guided PCI. Postprocedural OFDI was investigated regardless of randomization, while operators in IVUS-guided PCI arm were blinded to the images. The primary end point was in-segment minimum lumen area assessed using OFDI at 8 months, while the secondary end point was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target-lesion revascularization (device-oriented composite end point). Patients were followed up to 3 years after the index procedure. RESULTS: A total of 109 patients (mean age 70 years, male 78%) with 126 lesions were enrolled. Postprocedural minimum stent area was 6.31±1.89 and 6.72±2.08 mm(2) in OFDI and IVUS group, respectively (P=0.26). At the 8-month follow-up, in-segment minimum lumen area was 4.56±1.94 and 4.13±1.86 mm(2) in OFDI and IVUS group, respectively (P(non-inferiority) <0.001). Both groups had comparable neointimal healing score (median 0.16 [interquartile range, 0.00–3.14] versus 0.90 [0.00–3.30], respectively; P=0.43). The incidence rate of device-oriented composite end point at 3 years was 7.4% and 7.3% in OFDI and IVUS group, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.26–4.18]; P=0.95). CONCLUSIONS: OFDI-guided PCI was not inferior to IVUS-guided PCI in terms of in-segment minimum lumen area at 8 months. Although a small sample size was acknowledged, OFDI could be an alternative to IVUS when considering intracoronary imaging-guided PCI in selected populations with coronary artery diseases. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03292081. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2020-10-27 /pmc/articles/PMC7665240/ /pubmed/33106049 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.120.009314 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions is published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial-NoDerivs (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited, the use is noncommercial, and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Muramatsu, Takashi
Ozaki, Yukio
Nanasato, Mamoru
Ishikawa, Masato
Nagasaka, Ryo
Ohota, Masaya
Hashimoto, Yosuke
Yoshiki, Yu
Takatsu, Hidemaro
Ito, Katsuyoshi
Kamiya, Hiroki
Yoshida, Yukihiko
Murohara, Toyoaki
Izawa, Hideo
Comparison Between Optical Frequency Domain Imaging and Intravascular Ultrasound for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Guidance in Biolimus A9-Eluting Stent Implantation: A Randomized MISTIC-1 Non-Inferiority Trial
title Comparison Between Optical Frequency Domain Imaging and Intravascular Ultrasound for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Guidance in Biolimus A9-Eluting Stent Implantation: A Randomized MISTIC-1 Non-Inferiority Trial
title_full Comparison Between Optical Frequency Domain Imaging and Intravascular Ultrasound for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Guidance in Biolimus A9-Eluting Stent Implantation: A Randomized MISTIC-1 Non-Inferiority Trial
title_fullStr Comparison Between Optical Frequency Domain Imaging and Intravascular Ultrasound for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Guidance in Biolimus A9-Eluting Stent Implantation: A Randomized MISTIC-1 Non-Inferiority Trial
title_full_unstemmed Comparison Between Optical Frequency Domain Imaging and Intravascular Ultrasound for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Guidance in Biolimus A9-Eluting Stent Implantation: A Randomized MISTIC-1 Non-Inferiority Trial
title_short Comparison Between Optical Frequency Domain Imaging and Intravascular Ultrasound for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Guidance in Biolimus A9-Eluting Stent Implantation: A Randomized MISTIC-1 Non-Inferiority Trial
title_sort comparison between optical frequency domain imaging and intravascular ultrasound for percutaneous coronary intervention guidance in biolimus a9-eluting stent implantation: a randomized mistic-1 non-inferiority trial
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7665240/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33106049
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.120.009314
work_keys_str_mv AT muramatsutakashi comparisonbetweenopticalfrequencydomainimagingandintravascularultrasoundforpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionguidanceinbiolimusa9elutingstentimplantationarandomizedmistic1noninferioritytrial
AT ozakiyukio comparisonbetweenopticalfrequencydomainimagingandintravascularultrasoundforpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionguidanceinbiolimusa9elutingstentimplantationarandomizedmistic1noninferioritytrial
AT nanasatomamoru comparisonbetweenopticalfrequencydomainimagingandintravascularultrasoundforpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionguidanceinbiolimusa9elutingstentimplantationarandomizedmistic1noninferioritytrial
AT ishikawamasato comparisonbetweenopticalfrequencydomainimagingandintravascularultrasoundforpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionguidanceinbiolimusa9elutingstentimplantationarandomizedmistic1noninferioritytrial
AT nagasakaryo comparisonbetweenopticalfrequencydomainimagingandintravascularultrasoundforpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionguidanceinbiolimusa9elutingstentimplantationarandomizedmistic1noninferioritytrial
AT ohotamasaya comparisonbetweenopticalfrequencydomainimagingandintravascularultrasoundforpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionguidanceinbiolimusa9elutingstentimplantationarandomizedmistic1noninferioritytrial
AT hashimotoyosuke comparisonbetweenopticalfrequencydomainimagingandintravascularultrasoundforpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionguidanceinbiolimusa9elutingstentimplantationarandomizedmistic1noninferioritytrial
AT yoshikiyu comparisonbetweenopticalfrequencydomainimagingandintravascularultrasoundforpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionguidanceinbiolimusa9elutingstentimplantationarandomizedmistic1noninferioritytrial
AT takatsuhidemaro comparisonbetweenopticalfrequencydomainimagingandintravascularultrasoundforpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionguidanceinbiolimusa9elutingstentimplantationarandomizedmistic1noninferioritytrial
AT itokatsuyoshi comparisonbetweenopticalfrequencydomainimagingandintravascularultrasoundforpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionguidanceinbiolimusa9elutingstentimplantationarandomizedmistic1noninferioritytrial
AT kamiyahiroki comparisonbetweenopticalfrequencydomainimagingandintravascularultrasoundforpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionguidanceinbiolimusa9elutingstentimplantationarandomizedmistic1noninferioritytrial
AT yoshidayukihiko comparisonbetweenopticalfrequencydomainimagingandintravascularultrasoundforpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionguidanceinbiolimusa9elutingstentimplantationarandomizedmistic1noninferioritytrial
AT muroharatoyoaki comparisonbetweenopticalfrequencydomainimagingandintravascularultrasoundforpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionguidanceinbiolimusa9elutingstentimplantationarandomizedmistic1noninferioritytrial
AT izawahideo comparisonbetweenopticalfrequencydomainimagingandintravascularultrasoundforpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionguidanceinbiolimusa9elutingstentimplantationarandomizedmistic1noninferioritytrial