NCT03175523

HOW To Optimally Implant BioResorbable Scaffold - Intravascular Imaging Versus Quantitative Coronary Angiography Guidance

• Status: Terminated
• Phase: N/A
• Study type: Interventional
• Enrollment: 84 (actual)
• Sponsor: Seung-Jung Park · Academic / Other
• Sex: All
• Age: 19 Years
• Healthy volunteers: Not accepted

Summary

The objective of this trial is to compare clinical outcomes between imaging-guided and QCA-guided strategy in patients with native coronary artery disease undergoing BRS implantation.

Detailed description

The investigators hypothesized that intravascular imaging-guided BRS implantation is superior to QCA-guided BRS implantation with respect to target lesion failure in patients with native coronary artery disease.

Conditions

• Coronary Stenosis

Interventions

Type	Name	Description
DEVICE	quantitative coronary angiography guided Bioresorbable scaffold implantation	In the QCA-guided group, BRS size and length were chosen by both visual estimation and on-line QCA, and adjunct high-pressure dilation is routinely performed to achieve angiographic residual diameter stenosis less than 30% by QCA and absence of angiographically visible dissections.
DEVICE	imaging guided Bioresorbable scaffold implantation	In the imaging-guided group, imaging is used at any step of percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI) before, during, or after PCI. Final image examination after PCI is mandatory.

Timeline

• Start date: 2017-09-29
• Primary completion: 2019-02-20
• Completion: 2022-07-07
• First posted: 2017-06-05
• Last updated: 2022-07-08

Locations

1 site across 1 country: South Korea