Randomized comparison of coronary stent implantation under ultrasound or angiographic guidance to reduce stent restenosis (OPTICUS study)

Citation
H. Mudra et al., Randomized comparison of coronary stent implantation under ultrasound or angiographic guidance to reduce stent restenosis (OPTICUS study), CIRCULATION, 104(12), 2001, pp. 1343-1349
Citations number
26
Categorie Soggetti
Cardiovascular & Respiratory Systems","Cardiovascular & Hematology Research
Journal title
CIRCULATION
ISSN journal
00097322 → ACNP
Volume
104
Issue
12
Year of publication
2001
Pages
1343 - 1349
Database
ISI
SICI code
0009-7322(20010918)104:12<1343:RCOCSI>2.0.ZU;2-Q
Abstract
Background-Observational studies in selected patients have shown remarkably low restenosis rates after ultrasound-guided stent implantation. However, it is unknown whether this implantation strategy improves long-term angiogr aphic and clinical outcome in routine clinical practice. Methods and Results-A total of 550 patients with a symptomatic coronary les ion or silent ischemia were randomly assigned to either ultrasound-guided o r angiography-guided implantation of less than or equal to2 tubular stents. The primary end points were angiographic dichotomous restenosis rate, mini mal lumen diameter, and percent diameter stenosis after 6 months as determi ned by quantitative coronary angiography. Secondary end points were the occ urrence rates of major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction , coronary bypass surgery, and repeat percutaneous intervention) after 6 an d 12 months of follow-up. At 6 months, repeat angiography revealed no signi ficant differences between the groups with ultrasound- or angiography-guide d stent implantation with respect to dichotomous restenosis rate (24.5% ver sus 22.8%, P=0.68), minimal lumen diameter (1.95 +/-0.72 mm versus 1.91 +/- 0.68 mm, P=0.52), and percent diameter stenosis (34.8 +/- 20.6% versus 36.8 +/- 19.6%, P=0.29), respectively. At 12 months, neither major adverse card iac events (relative risk, 1.07; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.52; P=0.71) nor repeat pe rcutaneous interventions (relative risk 1.04; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.67; P=0.87) were reduced in the ultrasound-guided group. Conclusions-This study does not support the routine use of ultrasound guida nce for coronary stenting. Angiography-guided optimization of tubular stent s can be performed with comparable angiographic and clinical long-term resu lts.