Current use of intracoronary imaging in interventional practice - Results of a European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) and Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Interventions and Therapeutics (CVIT) Clinical Practice Survey.

Koskinas, Konstantinos C; Nakamura, Masato; Räber, Lorenz; Colleran, Roisin; Kadota, Kazushige; Capodanno, Davide; Wijns, William; Akasaka, Takashi; Valgimigli, Marco; Guagliumi, Giulio; Windecker, Stephan; Byrne, Robert A (2018). Current use of intracoronary imaging in interventional practice - Results of a European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) and Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Interventions and Therapeutics (CVIT) Clinical Practice Survey. EuroIntervention, 14(4), e475-e484. Europa Digital & Publishing 10.4244/EIJY18M03_01

[img] Text
Current use.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to registered users only
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (132kB) | Request a copy

AIMS This study evaluated the views of the cardiology community on the clinical use of coronary intravascular imaging (IVI). METHODS AND RESULTS A web-based survey was distributed to 31,893 individuals, with 1,105 responses received (3.5% response rate); 1,010 of 1,097 respondents (92.1%) self-reported as interventional cardiologists, 754 (68.7%) with >10 years experience. Overall, 96.1% had personal experience with IVI (95.5% with intravascular ultrasound [IVUS], 69.8% with optical coherence tomography [OCT], and 7.9% with near-infrared spectroscopy); 34.7% of respondents were from Europe and 52.0% were from Asia (45.4% from Japan). The most commonly reported indications for IVI were optimization of stenting (88.5%), procedural/strategy guidance (79.6%), and guidance of left main interventions (77.0%). Most respondents reported perceived equipoise regarding choice between IVUS and OCT for guidance of coronary intervention. High cost (65.9%) and prolongation of the procedure (35.0%) were the most commonly reported factors limiting use. IVI was used more frequently (>15% of cases guided by IVI) in Japan than Europe (96.6% vs. 10.4%, respectively; P<0.001) and by operators with longer interventional experience. CONCLUSIONS In a sample of predominantly experienced interventional cardiologists, there was a high rate of personal experience with IVI in clinical practice. The most commonly identified indications for IVI were optimization of stenting, procedural/strategy guidance, and guidance of left main interventions. Variability in practice patterns is substantial according to geographic region and interventional experience.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > Department of Cardiovascular Disorders (DHGE) > Clinic of Cardiology

UniBE Contributor:

Räber, Lorenz; Valgimigli, Marco and Windecker, Stephan

Subjects:

600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health

ISSN:

1774-024X

Publisher:

Europa Digital & Publishing

Language:

English

Submitter:

Nadia Biscozzo

Date Deposited:

04 Jun 2018 12:32

Last Modified:

27 Oct 2019 21:49

Publisher DOI:

10.4244/EIJY18M03_01

PubMed ID:

29537966

BORIS DOI:

10.7892/boris.116851

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/116851

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback