Research
Does intravascular ultrasound provide clinical benefits for percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal stent implantation? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
1 Instituto de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde (IATS), do Hospital das Clínicas da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Avenida Alfredo Balena, 110, CEP, 30130-100, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil
2 Setor de Hemodinâmica do Hospital das Clínicas da UFMG, Avenida Alfredo Balena, 110, CEP, 30130-100, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil
3 Departamento de Clínica Médica da Faculdade de Medicina da UFMG, Avenida Alfredo Balena, 190, CEP, 30130-100, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil
Systematic Reviews 2012, 1:42 doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-42
Published: 21 September 2012Abstract
Background
The role of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) is still controversial despite several previously published meta-analyses. A meta-analysis to evaluate the controversial role of IVUS-guided PCI with bare-metal stenting was performed and a previous published meta-analysis was re-evaluated in order to clarify the discrepancy between results of these studies.
Methods
A systematic review was performed by an electronic search of the PubMed, Embase and Web of Knowledge databases and by a manual search of reference lists for randomized controlled trials published until April 2011, with clinical outcomes and, at least, six months of clinical follow-up. A meta-analysis based on the intention to treat was performed with the selected studies.
Results
Five studies and 1,754 patients were included. There were no differences in death (OR = 1.86; 95% CI = 0.88-3.95; p = 0.10), non-fatal myocardial infarction (OR = 0.65; 95% CI = 0.27-1.58; p = 0.35) and major adverse cardiac events (OR = 0.74; 95% CI = 0.49-1.13; p = 0.16). An analysis of the previous published meta-analysis strongly suggested the presence of publication bias.
Conclusions
There is no evidence to recommend routine IVUS-guided PCI with bare-metal stent implantation. This may be explained by the paucity and heterogeneity of the studies published so far.
