IVUS guidance
benefits patients

How can we help you?

Contact information

* This field is mandatory

Country

First name*

First name (phonetic)

Last name*

Last name (phonetic)

Salutation

Academic title

Email address*

Business phone

Company*

Job title

Industry

Function

Specialty

Department

State or Province

City

Address

Zip or Postal Code

By specifying your reason for contact we will be able to provide you with a better service.

We work with partners and distributors who may contact you about this Philips product on our behalf.

Follow up information

Preferred method of contact

Best time to call

Estimated time of purchase

Comments

I hereby consent to processing of my personal data and sensitive personal data (if any) and transfer of such data abroad, in accordance with the Privacy Notice that can be found here.

What is cross border data transfer?

I agree on cross-border transfer of personal information.

I hereby agree to receive by email or telephone information about Philips products, services, events and promotions, including information by mail that is appropriate to me, taking into account my activities and preferences, including the Expectations I have indicated / and in this form.

I agree that Philips may share my personal information with authorized resellers of its Philips products and equipment in order to meet my expectations as stated in this form.

I would like to receive marketing related electronic communications about Philips products, services, events and promotions that may be relevant to me based on my user preferences and behavior. I can revoke my consent at any time.

Final CEE consent

Home

IVUS interpretation

Clinical evidence

Advanced imaging

Peripheral IVUS

IVUS imaging helps you decide, guide and confirm the right interventional treatment for each patient. IVUS-guided strategies are backed by various studies and The Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) expert consensus statement states that IVUS is “definitely beneficial”.¹ Explore the various studies below to learn more.

ULTIMATE RCT 3-year outcome data

Intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided implantation of drug-eluting stent in all-comers.⁶

“Routine IVUS-guided DES implantation is associated with fewer major adverse cardiac events (MACE) compared with angiography guidance for patients with individual lesion subset. However, prior to the ULTIMATE trial the beneficiary effect on MACE outcome from IVUS-guidance over angiography-guidance in all-comers who undergo DES implantation remained understudied.”
— Zhang J et al ⁶

Compared to angiography-guided PCI alone, in all comer patients, ULTIMATE shows that IVUS-guided PCI significantly reduces clinically driven Target Lesion Revascularization (TLR). This benefit was sustained over three years. Only 1.6% TVF* at 12 months and 4.2% TVF at 3 years when optimal IVUS-guided PCI criteria was met.

Primary endpoint based on patient-level comparison

Primary endpoint on patient level comparison

54% reduced rate of TVF at 3-years when optimal IVUS-guided PCI criteria was met.

Imaging standardization with 3 IVUS defined

criteria to achieve optimal PCI

Plaque burden at the 5-mm proximal or distal to the stent edge <50%.

Expansion satisfactory: Minimal lumen CSA in stented segment >5mm², or 90% of distal reference lumen CSA.

No edge dissection involving media with length >3mm.

IVUS-XPL 5-year outcomes

Reduction in MACE²

The IVUS-XPL study was a prospective, multi-center, randomized trial resulting in:

1,400 patients receiving Xience Prime stents ≥28 mm randomized (700 IVUS-guided, 700 angiography-guided) at 20 centers.
“Sustained 5-year clinical benefits resulted from both within 1 year and from 1 to 5 years’ post-implantation”.

ADAPT-DES

PCI strategy changed 74% of the time³

The ADAPT-DES study reported that IVUS guidance was associated with a change in PCI strategy 74% of the time.³ Most often, the impact was a larger sized stent or balloon, higher inflation pressures or post-dilation. Furthermore, the study reported that larger stent areas resulted in cases where both pre-and post-PCI IVUS were performed compared to when only post-PCI IVUS was performed.

34% reduction in MACE⁵

The ADAPT-DES study reported that IVUS guidance was associated with a 34% reduction in major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 2 years (4.9% vs 7.4%, p < 0.001).⁵

34%

reduction in MACE associated with IVUS guidance

Relationship between IVUS use and MACE (definite/probable ST, cardiac death, MI) within 2 years

Meta-analysis

Meta-analyses of a combined 39 distinct studies and more than 36,000 patients show that IVUS-guided DES stenting is associated with reduced MACE. ^7,8,9,10,11

*Duplicated patients participating in the studies have been removed.

Source	The American Journal of Cardiology	Circulations Cardiovascular Interventions	International Journal of Cardiology	EuroIntervention	JACC Cardiovascular Interventions	Total
Author	Ahn JM	Elgendy IY	Klersey C	Zhang YJ	Jang JS
IVUS patients	12499	1593	9965	8102	11793	15469^*
Total DES patients	26503	3192	18707	19619	24849	36831^*

*Duplicated patients participating in the studies have been removed.

Meta-analysis

Meta-analyses of a combined 39 distinct studies and more than 36,000 patients show that IVUS-guided DES stenting

is associated with reduced MACE ^7,8,9,10,11

Source	Author	IVUS patients	DES patients
The American Journal of Cardiology	Ahn JM	12499	26503
Circulations Cardiovascular Interventions	Elgendy IY	1593	3192
International Journal of Cardiology	Klersey C	9965	18707
EuroIntervention	Zhang YJ	8102	19619
JACC Cardiovascular Interventions	Jang JS	11793	24849
Total		15469	36831

*Duplicated patients participating in the studies have been removed.

Samsung registry
43% lower risk of cardiac death¹²

6,005 patients who had at least one complex lesion undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents were enrolled in a prospective institutional registry. IVUS guidance was used on 1,674 enrolled patients. IVUS-guided PCI was associated with 43% lower risk of cardiac death during 64 months of median follow-up compared with angiography-guided PCI.¹²

Clinical outcomes

Economic impact of IVUS
IVUS-guided PCI with DES is a dominant treatment option vs. angiography¹³

An analysis of IVUS-guided PCI and angiography-guided PCI from an Italian healthcare payer perspective found that IVUS-guided PCI with DES is a dominant treatment option compared to angiography-guided PCI with DES.¹³

• The analysis modeled incremental cost effectiveness based on DRG tariffs and outcomes data from the Ahn meta-analysis.

• Most data points are in the south-east quadrant indicating better outcomes and lower costs with IVUS-guidance versus angiography alone.
• Cost savings increased in patients with diabetes, renal insufficiency, or ACS and were associated with less MI and revascularization.

Clinical evidence slides for download
If you would like to receive a deck of slides that you can use in presentations on the evidence and guidelines for the use of IVUS in PCI, please enter your name and email address below. These slides are provided on a blank background so you may adapt them to your own templates so long as all footnotes remain visible.

Download clinical evidence slides now

Contact information

* This field is mandatory

Country

Contact details

First name*

Last name*

Salutation

Academic title

Email address*

Phone

Company details

Company

Job title*

Specialty

State or Province

Zip or Postal Code

I hereby consent to processing of my personal data and sensitive personal data (if any) and transfer of such data abroad, in accordance with the Privacy Notice that can be found here.

What is cross border data transfer?

I agree on cross-border transfer of personal information.

Philips ELIITE Academy is focused on delivering high value and real-time strategic educational programs that meet the evolving needs of our customers. For more information on the available courses, please visit www.philipseliiteacademy.com.

Key thought leaders

Clinical expertise

Product knowledge

1. Klersey C, et al. Use of IVUS guided coronary stenting with drug eluting stent: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials and high quality observational studies. Int J Cardiol. 2013 Dec 5;170(1):54-63.

2. Hong S-J, et al. “Effect of Intravascular Ultrasound-guided Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: Five-Year Follow-Up of the IVUS-XPL Randomized Trial, JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2019.09.033

3. Witzenbichler B, Maehara A, Weisz G, et al. Relationship between intravascular ultrasound guidance and clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stents: the assessment of dual antiplatelet therapy with drug-eluting stents (ADAPT-DES) study. Circulation. 2014;129(4):463-470.

4. A. Maehara, ADAPT-DES IVUS Substudy: Utility of IVUS in delineating the Mechanism of and Preventing Stent Thrombosis, TCT Presentation October 24, 2012

5. Maehara A. Relationship Between Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance and Clinical Outcomes After Drug-Eluting Stents. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Nov;11(11):e006243

6. Zhang J et al. The ULTIMATE trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2018), doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.013

7. Ahn JM, Kang SJ, Yoon SH, et al. Meta-analysis of outcomes after intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation in 26,503 patients enrolled in three randomized trials and 14 observational studies. Am J Cardiol. 2014;113:1338-1347.

8. Elgendy IY et al. Outomes with Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Stent Implantation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials in the Era of Drug-Eluting Stents. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:e003700

9. Jang JS, et al. Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Implantation of Drug-Eluting Stents to Improve Outcome, A Meta-Analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2014;7(3):233-243

10. Zhang YJ, et al. Comparison of intravascular ultrasound versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation: a meta-analysis of one randomized trial and ten observational studies involving 19,619 patients. EuroIntervention. 2013;9:891-892

11. Klersey C, et al. Use of IVUS guided coronary stenting with drug eluting stent: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials and high quality observational studies. Int J Cardiol. 2013 Dec 5;170(1):54-63.

12. Choi KH, Song YB, Lee JM, et al. Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Complex Procedures. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:607–20.

13. Alberti. Understanding the economic impact of intravascular ultrasound. Eur J Health Econ (2016) 17:185–193

IVUS guidance benefits patients

Contact information

IVUS interpretation

ULTIMATE RCT 3-year outcome data

Primary endpoint based on patient-level comparison

Imaging standardization with 3 IVUS defined criteria to achieve optimal PCI

Plaque burden at the 5-mm proximal or distal to the stent edge <50%.

Expansion satisfactory: Minimal lumen CSA in stented segment >5mm2, or 90% of distal reference lumen CSA.

No edge dissection involving media with length >3mm.

IVUS-XPL 5-year outcomes

Reduction in MACE2

ADAPT-DES

PCI strategy changed 74% of the time3

34% reduction in MACE5

34%

reduction in MACE associated with IVUS guidance

Meta-analysis

Meta-analysis

Meta-analyses of a combined 39 distinct studies and more than 36,000 patients show that IVUS-guided DES stenting

Ahn JM

1593

18707

Samsung registry 43% lower risk of cardiac death12

Clinical outcomes

Economic impact of IVUS IVUS-guided PCI with DES is a dominant treatment option vs. angiography13

Contact information

Contact details

Company details

Key thought leaders

IVUS guidance
benefits patients

Imaging standardization with 3 IVUS defined

criteria to achieve optimal PCI

Expansion satisfactory: Minimal lumen CSA in stented segment >5mm², or 90% of distal reference lumen CSA.

Reduction in MACE²

PCI strategy changed 74% of the time³

34% reduction in MACE⁵

Samsung registry
43% lower risk of cardiac death¹²

Economic impact of IVUS
IVUS-guided PCI with DES is a dominant treatment option vs. angiography¹³