Carotid plaque morphology plays an important role in determining outcome of carotid artery stenting (CAS). Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and its extension VH (Virtual Histology)-IVUS evaluate plaque characteristics in real time and guide decision making during stenting. To date, there is no consensus about indications of IVUS and its validated methods. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the clinical utility of IVUS in carotid artery interventions (CAS) and develop a future consensus for research and practice parameters.
Methods:
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of the English literature articles published till February 2021. Studies reporting on IVUS parameters and findings and also its performance compared with other imaging modalities were included in review. Pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated. The statistical analysis was conducted in R version 3.6.2.
Results:
A total of 2015 patients from 29 studies were included. Proportional meta-analysis was performed on 1566 patients from 11 studies. In 9 studies, stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) had a pooled prevalence of 4% (95% CI 3%–5%) while asymptomatic stroke had a pooled prevalence of 46% (95% CI 31%–62%) in 4 studies following IVUS. Two studies reported that IVUS detected more plaque protrusion compared with angiography (n=33/396 vs 11/396). IVUS led to stent type or size change in 8 of 48 cases which were missed on angiography in 3 other studies. Concordance between VH-IVUS and true histology was good at 80% to 85% reported in 2 studies.
Conclusions:
This systematic review and meta-analysis showed, though IVUS fared better to computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance (MR) angiography for better stent selection during CAS, with low to moderate risk of bias in the studies included. However, large scale, preferably randomized controlled studies are needed to predict its role in determining clinical outcome.
SangiorgiGBedogniFSganzerlaP, et al. The Virtual histology In CaroTids Observational RegistrY (VICTORY) study: a European prospective registry to assess the feasibility and safety of intravascular ultrasound and virtual histology during carotid interventions. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168(3):2089–2093. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.01.159.
MehtaSKMcCraryJRFrutkinAD, et al. Intravascular ultrasound radiofrequency analysis of coronary atherosclerosis: an emerging technology for the assessment of vulnerable plaque. Eur Heart J. 2007;28(11):1283–1288. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehm112.
4.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJ, et al; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
5.
MunnZBarkerTHMoolaS, et al. Methodological quality of case series studies: an introduction to the JBI critical appraisal tool. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18:2127–2133. doi:10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00099.
6.
SterneJACSavovićJPageMJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898. doi:10.1136/bmj.l4898.
7.
SaccoRLKasnerSEBroderickJP, et al. An updated definition of stroke for the 21st century. Stroke. 2013;44(7):2064–2089. doi:10.1161/STR.0b013e318296aeca.
8.
YamadaKYoshimuraSKawasakiM, et al. Prediction of silent ischemic lesions after carotid artery stenting using virtual histology intravascular ultrasound. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2011;32(2):106–113. doi:10.1159/000328231.
9.
GaoSWongKSHansbergT, et al. Microembolic signal predicts recurrent cerebral ischemic events in acute stroke patients with middle cerebral artery stenosis. Stroke. 2004;35(12):2832–2836. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000147035.31297.b6.
10.
StiloFMontelioneNCalandrelliR, et al. The management of carotid restenosis: a comprehensive review. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8(19):1272–1272. doi:10.21037/atm-20-963.
11.
AngeliniAReimersBDella BarberaM, et al. Cerebral protection during carotid artery stenting: collection and histopathologic analysis of embolized debris. Stroke. 2002;33(2):456–461. doi:10.1161/hs0202.102337.
12.
ShinozakiNOgataNIkariY. Plaque protrusion detected by intravascular ultrasound during carotid artery stenting. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2014;23(10):2622–2625. doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2014.06.007.
13.
JoanMMMoyaBGAgustíFP, et al. Utility of intravascular ultrasound examination during carotid stenting. Ann Vasc Surg. 2009;23(5):606–611. doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2008.09.010.
14.
ChiocchiMMorosettiDChiaravallotiA, et al. Intravascular ultrasound assisted carotid artery stenting: randomized controlled trial. Preliminary results on 60 patients. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2019;20(4):248–252. doi:10.2459/JCM.0b013e32835898f1.
15.
BandykDFArmstrongPA. Use of intravascular ultrasound as a “Quality Control” technique during carotid stent-angioplasty: are there risks to its use?J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2009;50(6):727–733.
16.
IrshadKMillarSVeluR, et al. Virtual histology intravascular ultrasound in carotid interventions. J Endovasc Ther. 2007;14(2):198–207. doi:10.1177/152660280701400212.
17.
MorrSVakhariaKFanousAA, et al. Utility of intravascular ultrasound during carotid angioplasty and stenting with proximal protection. Cureus. 2019;11(6):e4935. doi:10.7759/cureus.4935.
18.
ClarkDJLessioSO’DonoghueM, et al. Safety and utility of intravascular ultrasound-guided carotid artery stenting. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2004;63(3):355–362. doi:10.1002/ccd.20188.
19.
TsurumiATsurumiYHososhimaO, et al. Virtual histology analysis of carotid atherosclerotic plaque: plaque composition at the minimum lumen site and of the entire carotid plaque. J Neuroimaging. 2013;23(1):12–17. doi:10.1111/j.1552-6569.2012.00748.x.
20.
OkazakiTSakamotoSShinagawaK, et al. Detection of in-stent protrusion (ISP) by intravascular ultrasound during carotid stenting: usefulness of stent-in-stent placement for ISP. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(1):77–84. doi:10.1007/s00330-018-5636-3.
21.
SiewiorekGMLoghmanpourNAWinstonBM, et al. Reproducibility of IVUS border detection for carotid atherosclerotic plaque assessment. Med Eng Phys. 2012;34(6):702–708. doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2011.09.013.
22.
GonzálezALópez-RuedaAGutiérrezI, et al. Carotid plaque characterization by virtual histology intravascular ultrasound related to the timing of carotid intervention. J Endovasc Ther. 2012;19(6):764–773. doi:10.1583/JEVT-12-3914MR2.1.
23.
MatsumotoSNakaharaIHigashiT, et al. Fibro-fatty volume of culprit lesions in Virtual HistologyTM intravascular ultrasound is associated with the amount of debris during carotid artery stenting. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2010;29(5):468–475. doi:10.1159/000297962.
24.
DiethrichEBPauliina MargolisMReidDB, et al. Virtual histology intravascular ultrasound assessment of carotid artery disease: the Carotid Artery Plaque Virtual Histology Evaluation (CAPITAL) study. J Endovasc Ther. 2007;14(5):676–686. doi:10.1177/152660280701400512.
25.
FuchsMHeiderPPelisekJ, et al. Ex vivo characterization of carotid plaques by intravascular ultrasonography and virtual histology: concordance with real plaque pathomorphology. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2017;58(1):55–64. doi:10.23736/S0021-9509.16.07655-2.
26.
HishikawaTIiharaKIshibashi-UedaH, et al. Virtual histology–intravascular ultrasound in assessment of carotid plaques: ex vivo study. Neurosurgery. 2009;65(1):146–152; discussion 152. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000346271.31050.AF.
27.
ChiocchiMChiaravallotiAMorosettiD, et al. Virtual histology-intravascular ultrasound as a diagnostic alternative for morphological characterization of carotid plaque: comparison with histology and high-resolution magnetic resonance findings. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2019;20(5):335–342. doi:10.2459/JCM.0b013e328356a5d2.
28.
KotsugiMTakayamaKMyouchinK, et al. Carotid artery stenting: investigation of plaque protrusion incidence and prognosis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(8):824–831. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2017.01.029.
29.
TamakawaNSakaiHNishimuraY. Evaluation of carotid artery plaque using IVUS virtual histology. Interv Neuroradiol. 2007;13(suppl 1):100–105. doi:10.1177/15910199070130S114.
30.
MaeharaAMatsumuraMAliZA, et al. IVUS-guided versus OCT-guided coronary stent implantation: a critical appraisal. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10(12):1487–1503. doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.09.008.
31.
YoshimuraSKawasakiMYamadaK, et al. Visualization of internal carotid artery atherosclerotic plaques in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients: a comparison of optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012;33(2):308–313. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2740.
32.
ShinoharaYSakamotoMKuyaK, et al. Assessment of carotid plaque composition using fast-kV switching dual-energy CT with gemstone detector: comparison with extracorporeal and virtual histology-intravascular ultrasound. Neuroradiology. 2015;57(9):889–895. doi:10.1007/s00234-015-1541-5.
33.
YanBPClarkDJJaffMR, et al. Carotid duplex ultrasound velocity measurements versus intravascular ultrasound in detecting carotid in-stent restenosis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2(5):438–443. doi:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.109.857276.
34.
TimaranCHRoseroEBMartinezAE, et al. Atherosclerotic plaque composition assessed by virtual histology intravascular ultrasound and cerebral embolization after carotid stenting. J Vasc Surg. 2010;52(5):1188–1194. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2010.05.101.
35.
HitchnerEZayedMALeeG, et al. Intravascular ultrasound as a clinical adjunct for carotid plaque characterization. J Vasc Surg. 2014;59(3):774–780. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2013.09.028.
36.
KondoHKiuraYSakamotoS, et al. Comparative evaluation of angioscopy and intravascular ultrasound for assessing plaque protrusion during carotid artery stenting procedures. World Neurosurg. 2019;125:e448–e455. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2019.01.102.
37.
ClarkDJLessioSO’DonoghueM, et al. Mechanisms and predictors of carotid artery stent restenosis: a serial intravascular ultrasound study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47(12):2390–2396. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2006.01.076.
38.
MontorsiPGalliSRavagnaniPM, et al. Drug-eluting balloon for treatment of in-stent restenosis after carotid artery stenting: preliminary report. J Endovasc Ther. 2012;19(6):734–742. doi:10.1583/JEVT-12-4042R.1.
39.
MusialekPPieniazekPTraczW, et al. Safety of embolic protection device-assisted and unprotected intravascular ultrasound in evaluating carotid artery atherosclerotic lesions. Med Sci Monit. 2012;18(2):MT7–MT18. doi:10.12659/msm.882452.
40.
TsurumiAMiyachiSHososhimaO, et al. Can periprocedural hypotension in carotid artery stenting be predicted? a carotid morphologic autonomic pathologic scoring model using virtual histology to anticipate hypotension. Interv Neuroradiol. 2009;15(1):17–28. doi:10.1177/159101990901500104.
41.
WadaTTakayhamaKMyouchinK, et al. Usefulness of plaque diagnosis using intravascular ultrasound during carotid artery stenting. J Neuroendovascular Ther. 2018;12(12):603–608. doi:10.5797/jnet.ra.2018-0070.
MuellerCHodgsonJMBSchindlerC, et al. Cost-effectiveness of intracoronary ultrasound for percutaneous coronary interventions. Am J Cardiol. 2003;91(2):143–147. doi:10.1016/s0002-9149(02)03099-0.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
