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
Koskinas, Konstantinos C.
Nakamura, Masato
Räber, Lorenz
Colleran, Roisin
Kadota, Kazushige
Capodanno, Davide
Wijns, William
Akasaka, Takashi
Valgimigli, Marco
Guagliumi, Giulio
Repository DOI
Publication Date
2018-01-01
Type
Article
Downloads
Citation
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),
Abstract
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 > 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.
Funder
Publisher
Japanese Circulation Society
Publisher DOI
10.1253/circj.cj-17-1144
Rights
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Ireland