Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Intravascular Ultrasound during Endovascular Intervention for Peripheral Artery Disease, by Severity, Location, Device, and Procedure.
Kumar, Ashish; Shariff, Mariam; Majmundar, Monil; Stulak, John M; Anavekar, Nandan; Deshmukh, Abhishek; Bashir, Riyaz.
Afiliação
  • Kumar A; Department of Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Akron General, Akron, Ohio.
  • Shariff M; Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minneapolis.
  • Majmundar M; Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas.
  • Stulak JM; Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
  • Anavekar N; Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
  • Deshmukh A; Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
  • Bashir R; Department of Cardiovascular Disease, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: riyaz.bashir@tuhs.temple.edu.
Am J Cardiol ; 225: 41-51, 2024 Aug 15.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38871159
ABSTRACT
There is limited evidence for the role of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in patients who underwent peripheral vascular intervention (PVI). We conducted retrospective cohort study utilizing the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality National Readmission database to delineate outcomes in IVUS-guided PVI versus non-IVUS-guided PVI. The present study utilized National Readmission database between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019. We identified patients who underwent endovascular intervention for peripheral artery disease using relevant International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Procedural Coding System. The cohort was divided based on the use of IVUS during the procedure. The primary outcome was major amputation at 6 months after index hospitalization. Measured confounders were matched using propensity score inverse probability of treatment weighing method. We further performed a subgroup analysis based on disease severity, location of intervention, device, and procedure. A total of 434,901 hospitalizations were included in the present analysis. PVI with IVUS compared with no IVUS had similar risk of amputation at 6 months (195 of 8,939 [2.17%] vs 10,404 of 384,003 [2.71%]), hazard ratio 0.98, CI 0.77 to 1.25. Further, there was no difference in the rates of secondary outcomes. On subgroup analysis, amputation rates were significantly lower in patients with rest pain, in iliac intervention, or patients who underwent drug-eluting stent implantation with the use of IVUS compared with no IVUS. This nationwide observational study showed that there was no difference in major amputation rates with the use of IVUS in patients who underwent PVI. However, in subgroup of patients with rest pain, iliac intervention or drug-eluting stent implantation IVUS use was associated with significantly lower major amputation rates.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Ultrassonografia de Intervenção / Doença Arterial Periférica / Procedimentos Endovasculares / Amputação Cirúrgica Limite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Am J Cardiol Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Ultrassonografia de Intervenção / Doença Arterial Periférica / Procedimentos Endovasculares / Amputação Cirúrgica Limite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Am J Cardiol Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article