Optical coherence tomography versus angiography and intravascular ultrasound to guide coronary stent implantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Optical coherence tomography-guided versus intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) yields clinical outcomes comparable to intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided PCI in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. However, there is a scarcity of data comparing the clinical outcomes of OCT-guided and IVUS-guided PCI in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We sought to compare the clinical outcomes of OCT-guided vs IVUS-guided PCI for patients with AMI in the era of second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES).

METHODS

We identified 5260 consecutive patients who underwent PCI with a second-generation DES for AMI under IVUS or OCT guidance from pooled data derived from a series of Korean AMI registries between 2011 and 2020. The primary endpoint was the 1-year rate of target lesion failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization.

RESULTS

A total of 535 (10.2%) and 4725 (89.8%) patients were treated under OCT and IVUS guidance, respectively. The 1-year target lesion failure rates were comparable between the OCT and IVUS groups before and after propensity score matching (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95%CI, 0.42-2.05, P=.84). The OCT utilization rate did not exceed 5% of total patients treated with second-generation DES implantation during the study period. The primary factors for the selection of OCT over IVUS were the absence of chronic kidney disease, non-left main vessel disease, single-vessel disease, stent diameter <3mm, and stent length ≤ 25mm.

CONCLUSIONS

OCT-guided PCI in patients with AMI treated with a second-generation DES provided comparable clinical outcomes for 1-year target lesion failure compared with IVUS-guided PCI.

Innovations in Intracoronary Imaging: Present Clinical Practices and Future Outlooks

Engaging intracoronary imaging (IC) techniques such as intravascular ultrasound or optical coherence tomography enables the precise description of vessel architecture. These imaging modalities have well-established roles in providing guidance and optimizing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes. Furthermore, IC is increasingly recognized for its diagnostic capabilities, as it has the unique capacity to reveal vessel wall characteristics that may not be apparent through angiography alone. This manuscript thoroughly reviews the contemporary landscape of IC in clinical practice. Focused on current methodologies, the review explores the utility and advancements in IC techniques. Emphasizing their role in clarifying coronary pathophysiology, guiding PCI, and optimizing patient outcomes, the manuscript critically evaluates the strengths and limitations of each modality. Additionally, the integration of IC into routine clinical workflows and its impact on decision-making processes are discussed. By synthesizing the latest evidence, this review provides valuable insights for clinicians, researchers, and healthcare professionals involved in the dynamic field of interventional cardiology.

Optical coherence tomography-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT), a high-resolution imaging modality, guides stent implantation during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, OCT-guided PCI safety and efficacy data is limited.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OCT-guided PCI to Angiography-guided PCI from inception to August 2023. A random-effects model was used to pool risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for clinical endpoints.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 5,139 patients from 11 studies. OCT-guided PCI resulted in a higher minimum stent area (MD = 0.35 [95 % CI, 0.21-0.49]; p < 0.00001), significantly reduced risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.56 [95 % CI, = 0.32-0.99]; p = 0.04), stent thrombosis (RR = 0.56 [95 % CI, 0.32-0.96]; p = 0.04), stent malapposition RR = 0.79 [95 % CI, 0.71-0.88]; p = < 0.0001) and major edge dissection (RR = 0.47 [95 % CI, 0.34-0.65]; p = <0.00001). However, no statistically significant difference was observed for all-cause mortality (RR = 0.71; p = 0.06), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) [RR = 0.80; p = 0.10], myocardial infarction (MI) [RR = 0.84; p = 0.16], target lesion revascularization (TLR) [RR = 0.94; p = 0.68], and target vessel revascularization (TVR) [RR = 0.91; p = 0.52].

CONCLUSION

OCT-guided PCI led to an increased MSA and decreased cardiovascular mortality, stent thrombosis, stent malapposition, and major edge dissection. The incidence of all-cause mortality, MACE, MI, TLR, and TVR remained comparable across the two groups.

Optical coherence tomography-guided vs. intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) are superior to coronary angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, whether one technique is superior to the other is inconclusive.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to November 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OCT and IVUS in patients undergoing PCI. RevMan 5.4 was used to pool outcomes with risk ratio (RR) as the effect measure.

RESULTS

Six RCTs (4,402 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the OCT- and IVUS-guided PCI groups in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.65, 1.16; I2 = 0%) and cardiac mortality (RR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.24, 2.21; I2 = 0%). The results were consistent across the subgroups of the presence or absence of left main disease (P interaction >0.1). There were no significant differences between OCT and IVUS in the risk of target lesion revascularization (RR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.47, 1.30; I2 = 0%), target vessel revascularization (RR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.69, 1.62; I2 = 0%), target-vessel myocardial infarction (RR 0.79, 95% CI: 0.40, 1.53; I2 = 0%), stent thrombosis (RR 0.59, 95% CI: 0.12, 2.97; I2 = 0%), and all-cause mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.53, 1.90; I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis demonstrated similar clinical outcomes in OCT- and IVUS-guided PCI. New large-scale multicenter RCTs with long-term follow-up are required to confirm or refute our findings and provide more reliable results.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, identifier, CRD42023486933.

Three-Year Clinical Impact of Murray Law-Based Quantitative Flow Ratio and OCT- or FFR-Guidance in Angiographically Intermediate Coronary Lesions

BACKGROUND

The FORZA trial (FFR or OCT Guidance to Revascularize Intermediate Coronary Stenosis Using Angioplasty) prospectively compared the use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) or optical coherence tomography (OCT) for treatment decisions and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) optimization in patients with angiographically intermediate coronary lesions. Murray law-based quantitative-flow-ratio (μQFR) is a novel noninvasive method for the computation of FFR. In the present study, we evaluated the clinical impact of μQFR, FFR, or OCT guidance in FORZA trial lesions at 3-year follow-up.

METHODS

μQFR was assessed at baseline and, in the case of a decision to intervene, after (FFR- or OCT-guided) PCI. The baseline μQFR was considered the final μQFR for deferred lesions, and post-PCI μQFR value was taken as final for stented lesions. The primary end point was target vessel failure ([TVF]; cardiac death, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target-vessel-revascularization) at a 3-year follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 419 vessels (199 OCT-guided and 220 FFR-guided) were included in the FORZA trial. μQFR was evaluated in 256 deferred lesions and 159 treated lesions (98 OCT-guided PCI and 61 FFR-guided PCI). In treated lesions, post-PCI μQFR was higher in OCT-group compared with FFR-group (median, 0.93 versus 0.91; P=0.023), and the post-PCI μQFR improvement was greater in FFR-group (0.14 versus 0.08; P<0.0001). At 3-year follow-up, OCT- and FFR-guided treatment decisions resulted in comparable TVF rate (6.7% versus 7.9%; P=0.617). Final μQFR was the only predictor of TVF. μQFR ≤0.89 was associated with 3× increase in TVF (11.6% versus 3.7%; P=0.004). PCI was a predictor of higher final μQFR (odds ratio, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.14-0.34]; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In vessels with angiographically intermediate coronary lesions, OCT-guided PCI resulted in comparable clinical outcomes as FFR-guided PCI. μQFR estimated at the end of diagnostic or interventional procedure predicted 3-year TVF.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01824030.

Optical Coherence Tomography-Guided versus Angiography-Guided PCI

BACKGROUND

Data regarding clinical outcomes after optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as compared with angiography-guided PCI are limited.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, single-blind trial, we randomly assigned patients with medication-treated diabetes or complex coronary-artery lesions to undergo OCT-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. A final blinded OCT procedure was performed in patients in the angiography group. The two primary efficacy end points were the minimum stent area after PCI as assessed with OCT and target-vessel failure at 2 years, defined as a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

The trial was conducted at 80 sites in 18 countries. A total of 2487 patients underwent randomization: 1233 patients were assigned to undergo OCT-guided PCI, and 1254 to undergo angiography-guided PCI. The minimum stent area after PCI was 5.72±2.04 mm2 in the OCT group and 5.36±1.87 mm2 in the angiography group (mean difference, 0.36 mm2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21 to 0.51; P<0.001). Target-vessel failure within 2 years occurred in 88 patients in the OCT group and in 99 patients in the angiography group (Kaplan-Meier estimates, 7.4% and 8.2%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.19; P = 0.45). OCT-related adverse events occurred in 1 patient in the OCT group and in 2 patients in the angiography group. Stent thrombosis within 2 years occurred in 6 patients (0.5%) in the OCT group and in 17 patients (1.4%) in the angiography group.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing PCI, OCT guidance resulted in a larger minimum stent area than angiography guidance, but there was no apparent between-group difference in the percentage of patients with target-vessel failure at 2 years. (Funded by Abbott; ILUMIEN IV: OPTIMAL PCI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03507777.).

Very long-term outlook of acute coronary syndromes after percutaneous coronary intervention with implantation of polymer-free versus durable-polymer new-generation drug-eluting stents

BACKGROUND

Detailed long-term follow-up data on patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in general, and those with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in particular, are limited. We aimed to appraise the long-term outlook of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with state-of-the-art coronary stents for STEMI, other types of ACS and stable coronary artery disease (CAD), and also explore the potential beneficial impact of new-generation polymer-free drug-eluting stents (DES) in this setting.

METHODS

Baseline, procedural and very long-term outcome data on patients undergoing PCI and randomized to implantation of new-generation polymer-free vs. durable polymer DES were systematically collected, explicitly distinguishing subjects with admission diagnosis of STEMI, non-ST-elevation ACS (NSTEACS), and stable CAD. Outcomes of interest included death, myocardial infarction, revascularization (i.e. patient-oriented composite endpoints [POCE]), major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and device-oriented composite endpoints (DOCE).

RESULTS

A total of 3002 patients were included, 1770 (59.0%) with stable CAD, 921 (30.7%) with NSTEACS, and 311 (10.4%) with STEMI. At long-term follow-up (7.5±3.1 years), all clinical events were significantly more common in the NSTEACS group and, to a lesser extent, in the stable CAD group (e.g. POCE occurred in, respectively, 637 [44.7%] vs. 964 [37.9%] vs. 133 [31.5%], P<0.001). While these differences were largely attributable to adverse coexisting features in patients with NSTEACS (e.g. advanced age, insulin-dependent diabetes, and extent of CAD), the unfavorable outlook of patients presenting with NSTEACS persisted even after multivariable adjustment including several prognostically relevant factors (hazard ratio [HR] of NSTEACS vs. stable CAD 1.19 [95% confidence interval 1.03-1.38], P=0.016). Notably, even after encompassing all prognostically impactful features, no difference between polymer-free and permanent polymer drug-eluting stents appeared (HR=0.96 [0.84-1.10], P=0.560).

CONCLUSIONS

Unstable coronary artery disease, especially when presenting without ST-elevation, represents an informative marker of adverse long-term prognosis in current state-of-the-art invasive cardiology practice. Even considering admission diagnosis, and despite of using no polymer, polymer-free DES showed similar results with regards to safety and efficacy when compared with DES with permanent polymer.

Comparison of intravascular ultrasound, optical coherence tomography, and conventional angiography-guided percutaneous coronary interventions: A systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

Intracoronary imaging modalities, including intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT), provide valuable supplemental data unavailable on coronary angiography (CA) and have shown to improve clinical outcomes. We sought to compare the clinical efficacy of IVUS, OCT, and conventional CA-guided percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI).

METHODS

Frequentist and Bayesian network meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials were performed to compare clinical outcomes of PCI performed with IVUS, OCT, or CA alone.

RESULTS

A total of 28 trials comprising 12,895 patients were included. IVUS when compared with CA alone was associated with a significantly reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (risk ratio: [RR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval: [CI] 0.63-0.88), cardiac death (RR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.43-0.94), target lesion revascularization (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.57-0.80), and target vessel revascularization (RR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.50-0.81). No differences in comparative clinical efficacy were found between IVUS and OCT. Rank probability analysis bestowed the highest probability to IVUS in ranking as the best imaging modality for all studied outcomes except for all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSION

Compared with CA, the use of IVUS in PCI guidance provides significant benefit in reducing MACE, cardiac death, and revascularization. OCT had similar outcomes to IVUS, but more dedicated studies are needed to confirm the superiority of OCT over CA.