IVUS-Guided versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) in Unprotected Left Main Coronary Disease
Primary resultResult — go to the resultHazard ratio 1.11 95% CI 0.87–1.42Authors' conclusion
Among patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease, IVUS-guided PCI showed no additional benefit over angiography-guided PCI with respect to the incidence of stroke, myocardial infarction, any revascularization, or death from any cause at a median follow-up of 2.9 years.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease
- Participants
- 806 patients
- Comparison
- Intravascular ultrasonographic (IVUS)-guided PCI vs angiography-guided PCI
- IVUS-guided PCIn = 401
- Angiography-guided PCIn = 405reference
- Primary endpoint
- Patient-oriented composite of:
- Any stroke
- Any MI
- Any revascularization
- All-cause death
- Follow-up
- Longest
Methodological detailsinternational, multicentre, open-label
- International
- Multicentre
- Open-label
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
median follow-up 2.9 years
Hazard ratio
1.11
95% CI 0.87–1.42
P = 0.40
Events by treatment group
IVUS-guided PCIvs Angiography-guided PCI
HR 1.11 (95% CI 0.87–1.42); P = 0.40
Further findings
Death, MI or revascularization
- Incidence appeared similar in the two groups
Safety
Procedure-related and overall safety events
- Percentages appeared similar in the two groups
Original publication
IVUS-Guided versus Angiography-Guided PCI in Unprotected Left Main Coronary Disease. N Engl J Med. Published 30 March 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →