Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• 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

Titel

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

Ist Teil von

• EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 2018-07, Vol.14 (4), p.e475

Ort / Verlag

France

Erscheinungsjahr

2018

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

MEDLINE

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• This study evaluated the views of the cardiology community on the clinical use of coronary intravascular imaging (IVI). 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. 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.