Is Routine Postdilation During Angiography-Guided Stent Implantation as Good as Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance?: An Analysis Using Data From IVUS-XPL and ULTIMATE

Abstract

Background: There are 2 competing approaches to optimize drug-eluting stent implantation: angiography-guided routine postdilation or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance. Methods: From the pooled data of 2 randomized trials, IVUS-XPL (Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance on the Outcomes of Xience Prime Stents in Long Lesions) and ULTIMATE (Intravascular Ultrasound Guided Drug Eluting Stents Implantation in All-Comers Coronary Lesions), that compared IVUS- versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation, we compared 1037 patients (1265 lesions) with IVUS-guided postdilation, 905 patients (1170 lesions) with angiography-guided postdilation, and 383 patients (397 lesions) with angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation without postdilation as a reference group; all patients required ≥28 mm long stents. The primary end point was composite of cardiac death, target lesion–related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization at 3 years. Results: Postintervention quantitative coronary angiography–based minimum lumen diameter was not different between the angiography guidance with postdilation versus the angiography guidance without postdilation group (2.5±0.4 mm versus 2.5±0.4 mm; P =0.367). However, it was larger in the IVUS guidance with postdilation versus the angiography guidance without postdilation group (2.6±0.5 mm versus 2.5±0.4 mm; P =0.046), and also in the IVUS guidance with postdilation versus the angiography guidance with postdilation group (2.6±0.5 mm versus 2.5±0.4 mm; P <0.001). The rate of the primary end point was not different between the angiography guidance with postdilation versus the angiography guidance without postdilation group (8.6% versus 9.8%; hazard ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.58–1.29]; P =0.473). However, it was lower after IVUS guidance with postdilation versus angiography guidance without postdilation (4.5% versus 9.8%; hazard ratio, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.28–0.68]; P <0.001) and also after IVUS guidance with postdilation versus angiography guidance with postdilation (4.5% versus 8.6%; hazard ratio, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.35–0.74]; P <0.001). Conclusions: In patients undergoing long drug-eluting stent implantation, IVUS-guided postdilation was associated with improved long-term clinical outcomes, unlike angiography-guided postdilation.