Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance to Minimize the Use of Iodine Contrast in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The MOZART (Minimizing cOntrast utiliZation With IVUS Guidance in coRonary angioplasTy) Randomized Controlled Trial

• Main Authors: Mariani, José (Author), Guedes, Cristiano (Author), Soares, Paulo (Author), Zalc, Silvio (Author), Campos, Carlos M. (Author), Lopes, Augusto Celso de Araujo (Contributor), Spadaro, André G. (Author), Perin, Marco A. (Author), Filho, Antonio Esteves (Author), Takimura, Celso K. (Author), Ribeiro, Expedito (Author), Kalil-Filho, Roberto (Author), Edelman, Elazer R. (Contributor), Serruys, Patrick W. (Author), Lemos, Pedro A. (Author)
• Other Authors: Institute for Medical Engineering and Science (Contributor)
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier, 2016-06-06T16:29:32Z.
• Subjects: Article
• Online Access: Get fulltext

 Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance on the final volume of contrast agent used in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background: To date, few approaches have been described to reduce the final dose of contrast agent in PCIs. We hypothesized that IVUS might serve as an alternative imaging tool to angiography in many steps during PCI, thereby reducing the use of iodine contrast. Methods: A total of 83 patients were randomized to angiography-guided PCI or IVUS-guided PCI; both groups were treated according to a pre-defined meticulous procedural strategy. The primary endpoint was the total volume contrast agent used during PCI. Patients were followed clinically for an average of 4 months. Results: The median total volume of contrast was 64.5 ml (interquartile range [IQR]: 42.8 to 97.0 ml; minimum, 19 ml; maximum, 170 ml) in the angiography-guided group versus 20.0 ml (IQR: 12.5 to 30.0 ml; minimum, 3 ml; maximum, 54 ml) in the IVUS-guided group (p < 0.001). Similarly, the median volume of contrast/creatinine clearance ratio was significantly lower among patients treated with IVUS-guided PCI (1.0 [IQR: 0.6 to 1.9] vs. 0.4 [IQR: 0.2 to 0.6, respectively; p < 0.001). In-hospital and 4-month outcomes were not different between patients randomized to angiography-guided and IVUS-guided PCI. Conclusions: Thoughtful and extensive use of IVUS as the primary imaging tool to guide PCI is safe and markedly reduces the volume of iodine contrast compared with angiography-alone guidance. The use of IVUS should be considered for patients at high risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury or volume overload undergoing coronary angioplasty.