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

Text Current use.pdf - Published Version Restricted to registered users only Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (132kB)

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.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

2 since deposited on 04 Jun 2018
0 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item