TY - JOUR
T1 - Intravascular Imaging–Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
T2 - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials
AU - Sreenivasan, Jayakumar
AU - Reddy, Rohin K.
AU - Jamil, Yasser
AU - Malik, Aaqib
AU - Chamie, Daniel
AU - Howard, James P.
AU - Nanna, Michael G.
AU - Mintz, Gary S.
AU - Maehara, Akiko
AU - Ali, Ziad A.
AU - Moses, Jeffrey W.
AU - Chen, Shao Liang
AU - Chieffo, Alaide
AU - Colombo, Antonio
AU - Leon, Martin B.
AU - Lansky, Alexandra J.
AU - Ahmad, Yousif
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Authors.
PY - 2024/1/16
Y1 - 2024/1/16
N2 - BACKGROUND: Despite the initial evidence supporting the utility of intravascular imaging to guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), adoption remains low. Recent new trial data have become available. An updated study-level meta-analysis comparing intravascular imaging to angiography to guide PCI was performed. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of intravascular imaging–guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS: A random-effects meta-analysis was performed on the basis of the intention-to-treat principle. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events, cardiac death, and all-cause death. Mixed-effects meta-regression was performed to investigate the impact of complex PCI on the primary outcomes. A total of 16 trials with 7814 patients were included. The weighted mean follow-up duration was 28.8 months. Intravascular imaging led to a lower risk of major adverse cardiac events (relative risk [RR], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.55–0.82]; P<0.001), cardiac death (RR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.34–0.71]; P<0.001), stent thrombosis (RR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.40–0.99]; P=0.046), target-lesion revascularization (RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.49–0.91]; P=0.01), and target-vessel revascularization (RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.45–0.80]; P<0.001). In complex lesion subsets, the point estimate for imaging-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI for all-cause death was a RR of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.55–1.02; P=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing PCI, intravascular imaging is associated with reductions in major adverse cardiac events, cardiac death, stent thrombosis, target-lesion revascularization, and target-vessel revascularization. The magnitude of benefit is large and consistent across all included studies. There may also be benefits in all-cause death, particularly in complex lesion subsets. These results support the use of intravascular imaging as standard of care and updates of clinical guidelines.
AB - BACKGROUND: Despite the initial evidence supporting the utility of intravascular imaging to guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), adoption remains low. Recent new trial data have become available. An updated study-level meta-analysis comparing intravascular imaging to angiography to guide PCI was performed. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of intravascular imaging–guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS: A random-effects meta-analysis was performed on the basis of the intention-to-treat principle. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events, cardiac death, and all-cause death. Mixed-effects meta-regression was performed to investigate the impact of complex PCI on the primary outcomes. A total of 16 trials with 7814 patients were included. The weighted mean follow-up duration was 28.8 months. Intravascular imaging led to a lower risk of major adverse cardiac events (relative risk [RR], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.55–0.82]; P<0.001), cardiac death (RR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.34–0.71]; P<0.001), stent thrombosis (RR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.40–0.99]; P=0.046), target-lesion revascularization (RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.49–0.91]; P=0.01), and target-vessel revascularization (RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.45–0.80]; P<0.001). In complex lesion subsets, the point estimate for imaging-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI for all-cause death was a RR of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.55–1.02; P=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing PCI, intravascular imaging is associated with reductions in major adverse cardiac events, cardiac death, stent thrombosis, target-lesion revascularization, and target-vessel revascularization. The magnitude of benefit is large and consistent across all included studies. There may also be benefits in all-cause death, particularly in complex lesion subsets. These results support the use of intravascular imaging as standard of care and updates of clinical guidelines.
KW - intravascular ultrasound
KW - meta-analysis
KW - optical coherence tomography
KW - percutaneous coronary intervention
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85182601045&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1161/JAHA.123.031111
DO - 10.1161/JAHA.123.031111
M3 - Article
C2 - 38214263
AN - SCOPUS:85182601045
SN - 2047-9980
VL - 13
JO - Journal of the American Heart Association
JF - Journal of the American Heart Association
IS - 2
M1 - e031111
ER -