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.
Byrne, Robert A.
MetadataShow full item record
This item's downloads: 0 (view details)
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 ―. Circulation Journal 82 (5),
Background: 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 &gt; 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 (&gt; 15% of cases guided by IVI) in Japan than Europe (96.6% vs. 10.4%, respectively; P&lt;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.