Randomized Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Intravascular Ultrasound and Angiography-Guided Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation for Long Coronary Artery Stenoses

Intravascular Imaging-Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background/Objectives: Despite the potential benefits, intravascular imaging for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains underutilized. Recent trials have provided new data, prompting a need for updated insights. This study aimed to perform a comprehensive meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of intravascular imaging-guided PCI versus angiography-guided PCI, thereby evaluating the relative effectiveness of these two guidance strategies in improving patient outcomes. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Clinicaltrials.gov databases were systematically searched from inception till 25 November 2024. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing intravascular imaging with coronary angiography in patients undergoing complex PCI were included. Statistical analysis was conducted using a random effects model to calculate pooled risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: In this meta-analysis of 21 studies involving 18,043 patients, intravascular image-guided PCI significantly reduced the risk of all-cause mortality by 24%, cardiac mortality by 63%, MACE by 35%, target vessel myocardial infarction by 32%, stent thrombosis by 42%, target vessel revascularization by 45%, target lesion revascularization by 34% and myocardial infarction by 22% compared to angiography-guided PCI. There was no significant difference in bleeding events. Conclusions: Intravascular imaging significantly reduces cardiac events, all-cause mortality and revascularization rates in PCI patients. These findings support its broader adoption and potential updates to clinical guidelines.

Impact of systematic intravascular imaging on the outcomes of complex and higher-risk percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Intravascular imaging (IVI) improves the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the benefit of a systematic approach versus an already higher usage rate remains unclear. This study investigates the short-term impact of systematic IVI utilization during PCI in a complex higher-risk interventional PCI (CHIP-PCI) center.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed all patients undergoing PCI at a single center between April 2018 and March 2024. Participants were divided into groups based on IVI usage (systematic IVI: ≥80 % of procedures; non-systematic IVI: <80 %). Study endpoints included procedural metrics and in-hospital outcomes.

RESULTS

We analyzed 5547 PCI procedures: 2529 in the non-systematic IVI group (2018-2020) and 3018 in the systematic IVI group (2021-2024). PCI was performed for multivessel disease in 835 patients (15.1 %), left main disease in 957 (17.3 %), and chronic total occlusion in 2040 (36.8 %). Mechanical circulatory support was used in 385 (6.9 %). Atherectomy and intravascular lithotripsy were performed in 1409 (25.4 %) and 249 (4.5 %), respectively. After propensity score matching, -2,305 pairs were evaluated. Procedural and fluoroscopy time were similar between groups, while air kerma (577 vs. 688 mGy, p < 0.001) and contrast volume (96 ± 45 vs. 100 ± 47 ml, p = 0.005) were lower in the systematic IVI group. Systematic IVI was also associated with reduced cardiac tamponade rates (0.8 % vs. 1.6 %, p = 0.015) without differences in other cardiac-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large cohort of CHIP-PCI procedures performed at a highly specialized center, systematic IVI implementation was associated with lower radiation dose and contrast volume, as well as lower incidence of cardiac tamponade, at the expense of a slightly prolonged procedural time.

Intravascular Imaging-Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Complex PCI in Patients With High Bleeding Risk: A Secondary Analysis of the RENOVATE-COMPLEX PCI Trial

BACKGROUND

Although patients with high bleeding risk (HBR) often have complex coronary artery lesions, it is not known whether intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves their prognosis. We sought to investigate the benefit of intravascular imaging-guided PCI for complex coronary artery lesions in patients with HBR.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of the RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI trial (Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance Versus Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) in which patients with complex coronary artery lesions undergoing PCI were enrolled at 20 sites in Korea from May 2018 through May 2021. Patients were randomized to receive intravascular imaging-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI and classified according to the presence of HBR. The primary end point was target vessel failure, which was a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization.

RESULTS

Of 1639 trial population, 478 patients met HBR criteria. There was no significant difference in the risk of the primary end point between HBR and non-HBR patients (11.8% versus 8.2%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.05 [95% CI, 0.72-1.54]; P=0.790). However, patients with HBR were at higher risk for cardiac death or spontaneous target vessel-related myocardial infarction (adjusted HR, 2.04 [95% CI, 1.09-3.80]; P=0.025), all-cause death (adjusted HR, 3.30 [95% CI, 1.93-5.62]; P<0.001), and cardiac death (adjusted HR, 2.36 [95% CI, 1.10-5.09]; P=0.028). Intravascular imaging-guided PCI showed a lower risk of the primary end point compared with angiography-guided PCI in both HBR patients (9.7% versus 15.8%; adjusted HR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.31-1.02]; P=0.060) and non-HBR patients (6.9% versus 10.8%; adjusted HR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.43-0.99]; P=0.045), without significant interaction (P for interaction=0.796).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HBR were associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events after complex PCI compared with those without HBR. Intravascular imaging-guided PCI showed a lower risk of the target vessel failure without significant interaction between treatment strategy and the presence of HBR in patients undergoing complex PCI.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03381872.

Outcomes of intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention according to lesion complexity

BACKGROUND

Recent trials have shown that intravascular imaging (IVI)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves clinical outcome, as compared to angiography-guided PCI, in complex coronary artery lesions. However, it is unclear whether this benefit is affected by overall lesion complexity in each patient.

AIMS

The present study sought to investigate the impact of overall lesion complexity on the benefit of IVI-guided PCI.

METHODS

A total of 4,611 patients with complex coronary artery lesions from the RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI trial (n=1,639) and the institutional registry of the Samsung Medical Center (n=2,972) were classified according to the number of complex lesion features found in each patient. The primary outcome was target vessel failure (TVF) at 3 years, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularisation.

RESULTS

The cutoff value for the number of complex lesion features to predict TVF, determined using the maximally selected log-rank test, was 3. Patients with ≥3 complex lesion features had a higher risk of TVF than those with <3 complex lesion features (11.0% vs 7.2%, hazard ratio [HR] 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.28-1.96; p<0.001). IVI-guided PCI significantly reduced the risk of TVF compared with angiography-guided PCI in both groups (≥3 complex lesion features: 7.4% vs 14.4%, HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.35-0.69; p<0.001; <3 complex lesion features: 5.7% vs 8.1%, HR 0.72, 95% CI: 0.53-0.98; p=0.039). The benefit of IVI-guided PCI tended to increase as the number of complex lesion features increased (absolute risk reduction for TVF: -0.012 vs -0.027 vs -0.055 vs -0.077, respectively, for 1 vs 2 vs 3 vs ≥4 complex lesion features; interaction p=0.048).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with complex coronary artery lesions, IVI-guided PCI showed a lower risk of TVF across all degrees of lesion complexity. The prognostic benefit of IVI-guided PCI tended to increase as patients had more complex lesion features. (RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI [ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03381872]; Institutional cardiovascular catheterisation database of the Samsung Medical Center [ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03870815]).

Intravascular Imaging Predictors Associated With Cardiovascular Events After Complex PCIs

BACKGROUND

Intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been shown to improve clinical outcomes in patients with complex coronary artery lesions compared with angiography-guided PCI. However, the prognostic impact of suboptimal findings on intravascular imaging such as stent underexpansion, malapposition, or dissection is unclear in the era of contemporary drug-eluting stents.

METHODS

From RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI (Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance Versus Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) which compared imaging-guided PCI with angiography-guided PCI in patients with complex lesions, post-PCI intravascular imaging findings, including minimum stent area (MSA), relative stent underexpansion (MSA≤80% of the average reference lumen area), malapposition, or dissection, were assessed in nonleft main target lesions. The primary end point was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target lesion-related myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, or definite stent thrombosis.

RESULTS

A total of 897 nonleft main lesions from 714 patients undergoing imaging-guided PCI were included. During a median follow-up duration of 2.1 years, the optimal cutoff value of MSA to predict the occurrence of TLF was 5.5 mm2, and MSA<5.5 mm2 was associated with a significantly higher risk of TLF than MSA≥5.5 mm2 (2.2% versus 4.8%; adjusted hazard ratio, 3.09 [95% CI, 1.01-9.50]; P=0.048). Compared with the reference group (MSA≥5.5 mm2 and no suboptimal findings), the subgroup of patients with MSA≥5.5 mm2 and post-PCI intravascular imaging findings of relative stent underexpansion, major malapposition, or major dissection was associated with a numerically increased risk of TLF (0.0% versus 3.2%; P=0.057). Compared with the same reference group, the subgroup of patients with MSA<5.5 mm2 and suboptimal post-PCI intravascular imaging findings was associated with a significantly increased risk of TLF (0.0% versus 4.7%; P=0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

After intravascular imaging-guided PCI with contemporary drug-eluting stents for nonleft main complex lesions, inadequate absolute stent expansion was independently associated with a higher risk of TLF. Suboptimal post-PCI intravascular imaging findings of relative stent underexpansion, major malapposition, and major dissection seem to contribute to the risk of TLF.

REGISTRATION

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03381872.

Recurrent drug eluting stent, in-stent restenosis (DES-ISR): Epidemiology, pathophysiology & treatment

Coronary artery in-stent restenosis (ISR) is driven by neointimal hyperplasia and neo-atherosclerosis in previously placed stents. Drug eluting stents (DES) have been adopted as first line therapy for the initial episode of ISR. However, recurrent ISR has limited durable salvage options. In this article we review the pathophysiology, incidence, and management options of recurrent DES- ISR.

Intravascular imaging-guided vs. angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in high-risk patients and complex coronary anatomies

BACKGROUND

Despite a large body of evidence supporting the use of intravascular imaging (IVI) to guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), concerns exist about its universal recommendation. The selective use of IVI to guide PCI of complex lesions and patients is perceived as a rational approach.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane were systematically searched for RCTs that compared IVI-guided PCI with angiography-guided PCI in high-risk patients and complex coronary anatomies. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE). A random-effects model was used to calculate the risk ratios (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 15 RCTs with 14,109 patients were included and followed for a weighted mean duration of 15.8 months. IVI-guided PCI was associated with a decrease in the risk of MACE (RR: 0.65; 95 % CI: 0.56-0.77; p < 0.01), target vessel failure (TVF) (RR: 0.66; 95 % CI: 0.52-0.84; p < 0.01), all-cause mortality (RR: 0.71; 95 % CI: 0.55-0.91; p < 0.01), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.47; 95 % CI: 0.34-0.65; p < 0.01), stent thrombosis (RR: 0.55; 95 % CI: 0.38-0.79; p < 0.01), myocardial infarction (RR: 0.81; 95 % CI: 0.67-0.98; p = 0.03), and repeated revascularizations (RR: 0.70; 95 % CI: 0.58-0.85; p < 0.01) compared with angiography. There was no significant difference in procedure-related complications (RR: 1.03; 95 % CI: 0.75-1.42; p = 0.84) between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with angiographic guidance alone, IVI-guided PCI of complex lesions and high-risk patients significantly reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, MACE, TVF, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization.

Efficacy of IVUS-guided stent implantation in patients with complex CAD: a meta-analysis based on RCTs

Background

This study is to investigate the efficacy of stent implantation in patients with complex coronary artery disease (CAD) under intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance and non-IVUS guidance.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochran, and Embase for the articles of IVUS-guided and non-IVUS-guided stent implantation in patients with complex CAD and reported related outcomes. We included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death and other outcome indicators. Relative ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for statistical analysis.

Results

A total of 5,173 subjects were included in 6 randomized control trials. The results showed that the incidence of MACE (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.49-0.82, P < 0.001), cardiac death (RR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.44-0.85, P = 0.004), target vessel revascularization (TVR) (P = 0.01), target lesion revascularization (TLR) (P = 0.03) and stent thrombosis (ST) (P = 0.002) in the experimental group (IVUS-guidance) was lower than that in the control group (non-IVUS-guidance). However, no statistical difference was observed between the both groups in the incidence of MI (P = 0.13) and all-cause death (P = 0.41).

Conclusions

Compared with the non-IVUS-guided group, IVUS-guided stent implantation may be more effective for patients with complex CAD.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO [CRD42024531366].

Optical coherence tomography to guide percutaneous coronary intervention

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been most commonly guided by coronary angiography. However, to overcome the inherent limitations of conventional coronary angiography, there has been an increasing interest in the adjunctive tools of intracoronary imaging for PCI guidance. Recently, optical coherence tomography (OCT) has garnered substantial attention as a valid intravascular imaging modality for guiding PCI. However, despite the unparalleled high-resolution imaging capability of OCT, which offers detailed anatomical information on coronary lesion morphology and PCI optimisation, its broad application in routine PCI practice remains limited. Several factors may have curtailed the widespread adoption of OCT-guided PCI in daily practice, including the transitional challenge from intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), the experienced skill required for image acquisition and interpretation, the lack of a uniform algorithm for OCT-guided PCI optimisation, and the limited clinical evidence. Herein, we provide an in-depth review of OCT-guided PCI, involving the technical aspects, optimal strategies for OCT-guided PCI, and the wide application of OCT-guided PCI in various anatomical subsets. Special attention is given to the latest clinical evidence from recent randomised clinical trials with respect to OCT-guided PCI.

Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes Between Intravascular Ultrasound-, Optical Coherence Tomography- and Angiography-Guided Stent Implantation: A Meta-Analysis

Intravascular ultrasonography (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) guided percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) are alternative techniques to angiography-guided (ANG-g) PCI in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), especially for optimal stent deployment in coronary arteries. We conducted a network meta-analysis including studies comparing those three techniques. We searched databases for studies that compared IVUS, OCT, and ANG-g PCI in patients with CAD. Overall, 52 studies with 231,137 patients were included in this meta-analysis. ANG-g PCI had higher major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), all-cause death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and stent thrombosis (ST) than IVUS-guided PCI. Of note, both OCT-guided and IVUS-guided PCI had similar outcomes. The frequency of MACEs, cardiac death, and MI were higher in ANG-g PCI than in OCT-guided PCI. The highest benefit was established with OCT for MACEs (P-score=.973), MI (P-score=.823), and cardiac death (P-score=.921) and with IVUS for all-cause death (P-score=.792), TLR (P -score=.865), and ST (P-score=.930). This network meta-analysis indicated that using OCT or IVUS for optimal stent implantation provides better outcomes in comparison with ANG-g in patients with CAD undergoing PCI.

Intravascular imaging-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has become one of the most commonly performed interventional life-saving procedures worldwide. Intravascular Imaging (intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT)) have initially evolved to guide PCI compared with angiography. However, this technology is not universally employed in all PCI procedures, and there is ongoing controversy regarding its additional benefits to patient outcomes. We aim to estimate the efficacy and safety of imaging modalities during PCI, allowing pre-, per, and post-intervention assessment of coronary vascularization.

METHODS

A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which were retrieved from PubMed, WOS, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and CENTRAL through September 2023. We used R, version 4.2.0. Effect sizes will be presented as odds ratios with accompanying 95% credible intervals.

PROSPERO ID

CRD42024507821.

RESULTS

Our study, encompassing 36 RCTs with a total of 17,572 patients, revelead that compared to conventional angiography, IVUS significantly reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (OR: 0.71 [95% CrI: 0.56 to 0.87]) but not OCT (OR: 0.91 [95% CrI: 0.62 to 1.39]), IVUS and OCT significantly reduced the risk of cardiac death (OR: 0.50 [95% CrI: 0.33 to 0.76]) and (OR: 0.55 [95% CrI: 0.31 to 0.98]), respectively, IVUS significantly reduced the risk of target vessel-related revascularization (OR: 0.60 [95% CrI: 0.48 to 0.75]) but not OCT (OR: 0.86 [95% CrI: 0.60 to 1.19]), IVUS and OCT significantly reduced the risk of stent thrombosis (OR: 0.50 [95% CrI: 0.28 to 0.92]) and (OR: 0.48 [95% CrI: 0.22 to 0.98]), respectively, IVUS significantly reduced the risk of re-stenosis (OR: 0.65 [95% CrI: 0.46 to 0.88]) but not OCT (OR: 0.55 [95% CrI: 0.15 to 1.99]), neither IVUS (OR: 0.97 [95% CrI: 0.71 to 1.38]) nor OCT (OR: 0.75 [95% CrI: 0.49 to 1.22]) were associated with statistically significant reductions in all-cause mortality, neither IVUS (OR: 0.70 [95% CrI: 0.45 to 1.32]) nor OCT (OR: 0.81 [95% CrI: 0.47 to 1.59]) were associated with statistically significant reductions in target vessel failure, neither IVUS (OR: 0.88 [95% CrI: 0.43 to 2.44]) nor OCT (OR: 0.81 [95% CrI: 0.37 to 2.04]) were associated with statistically significant reductions in target lesion failure, and neither IVUS (OR: 0.82 [95% CrI: 0.60 to 1.06]) nor OCT (OR: 0.84 [95% CrI: 0.59 to 1.19]) were associated with statistically significant reductions in myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSION

Intravascular imaging-guided, including IVUS and OCT, improved the postinterventional outcomes of PCI, notably suggesting their advantage over traditional angiography with no significant difference between IVUS and OCT.

Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This meta-analysis evaluated the clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). A comprehensive literature search was conducted across major electronic databases, identifying relevant studies published up to August 15, 2024. Thirteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria, comparing IVUS-guided and angiography-guided PCI. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and stent thrombosis, while secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction, and revascularization rates. Pooled analysis revealed that IVUS-guided PCI significantly reduced the risk of MACE (risk ratio (RR): 0.63, 95% CI: 0.50-0.79) and stent thrombosis (RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.30-0.90) compared to angiography-guided PCI. Secondary outcomes also favored IVUS guidance, with significant reductions in cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). While a trend towards reduced all-cause mortality was observed with IVUS guidance, it did not reach statistical significance. Notably, low heterogeneity across studies strengthened the reliability of these findings. Meta-regression analysis indicated that the presence of myocardial infarction did not significantly moderate the effect of IVUS on clinical outcomes, suggesting consistent benefits across patient subgroups. These results highlight the potential of IVUS-guided PCI to improve cardiovascular outcomes and reduce the need for repeat procedures. The findings support the growing body of evidence favoring IVUS use in PCI, particularly in complex lesions and high-risk patients. However, considerations such as cost-effectiveness and the need for specialized training remain important factors in the widespread adoption of IVUS-guided PCI in clinical practice.

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.

Image-guided percutaneous revascularization of the coronary arteries

The European Society of Cardiology recently updated guidelines on the management of chronic coronary syndromes upgrading the use of intracoronary imaging for complex percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) to a class 1A recommendation. It is essential that the interventional community appreciate the additive value of intracoronary imaging over angiography alone-not only to obtain optimal acute PCI results but also to improve longer-term cardiovascular outcomes. The purpose of this manuscript is to review the latest evidence that informed the recent guideline recommendations and expand on the specific role of the different imaging modalities before, during, and after PCI.

Intravascular Imaging-Guided Versus Coronary Angiography-Guided Complex PCI: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Trials evaluating the role of intravascular imaging in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for complex coronary artery disease have yielded mixed results. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of intravascular imaging specifically intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) with those from conventional coronary angiography in complex PCI.

METHODS

Comprehensive electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was performed until March 2023 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing intravascular imaging with coronary angiography in patients undergoing complex PCI. Complex PCI was defined per each study, and included PCI for American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) type B2/C lesions, unprotected left main coronary artery disease, or multivessel stenting. The primary study outcome was major adverse clinical events (MACE).

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 10 RCTs with a total of 6615 patients (3576 in the intravascular imaging group and 3039 in the coronary angiography group). The weighted mean-follow up was 28.9 months. Compared with coronary angiography, intravascular imaging reduced MACE (8% vs. 13.3%; relative risk [RR] 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-0.73), cardiac death (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.31-0.73), definite/probable stent thrombosis (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.24-0.97), target vessel revascularization (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.46-0.83), and target lesion revascularization (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.47-0.79). There was no difference between both groups in all-cause death (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.53-1.18) and myocardial infarction (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.61-1.04).

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing complex PCI, intravascular imaging-specifically IVUS-reduced MACE by decreasing the incidence of cardiac death, stent thrombosis, and target vessel and target lesion revascularization.

Impact of Intravascular Imaging-Guided Stent Optimization According to Clinical Presentation in Patients Undergoing Complex PCI

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether the beneficial effects of intravascular imaging-guided stent optimization vary by clinical presentation during complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

OBJECTIVES

In this prespecified, stratified subgroup analysis from RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI (Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance versus Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex PCI), we sought to compare the outcomes between intravascular imaging vs angiography guidance according to clinical presentation.

METHODS

Patients with complex coronary artery lesions were randomly assigned to undergo either intravascular imaging-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI in a 2:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), which is a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization.

RESULTS

Of 1,639 patients, 832 (50.8%) presented with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and 807 (49.2%) with chronic coronary syndrome. During a median follow-up of 2.1 years (Q1-Q3: 1.4-3.0 years), there was no significant interaction between the treatment effect of intravascular imaging and clinical presentation (P for interaction = 0.19). Among patients with ACS, the incidences of TVF were 10.4% in the intravascular imaging group and 14.6% in the angiography group (HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.48-1.15; P = 0.18). Among patients with CCS, the incidences of TVF were 5.0% in the intravascular imaging group and 10.4% in the angiography group (HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.27-0.80; P = 0.006). Achieving stent optimization by intravascular imaging resulted in a reduced risk of TVF among patients with ACS who were randomly assigned to intravascular imaging-guided PCI for complex coronary lesions (optimized vs unoptimized, 6.5% vs 14.1%; HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.27-0.87; P = 0.02) but not those with CCS (5.4% vs 4.7%, HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.53-2.59; P = 0.69).

CONCLUSIONS

No significant interaction was observed between the benefits of intravascular imaging and clinical presentation in the risk of TVF. Stent optimization by intravascular imaging was particularly important for ACS patients. (Intravascular Imaging- Versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention For Complex Coronary Artery Disease [RENOVATE]; NCT03381872).

Long-term clinical outcomes of intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in complex coronary lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: In this study, we aim to discuss the long-term clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound imaging-guided percutaneous intervention (IVUS-PCI) versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in complex coronary lesions over a mean period of 2 years. Methods: A systematic search and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the efficacy of using intravascular ultrasound or optical coherence tomography guidance in coronary artery stenting compared to angiography. Results: A total of 11 randomized controlled trials with 6740 patients were included. For the primary outcome, a pooled analysis (3.2 vs 5.6%). For secondary outcomes, the risk was significantly low in image-guided percutaneous intervention compared with angiography. Conclusion: Intravascular imaging-guided PCI is significantly more effective than angiography-guided PCI in reducing the risk of target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, cardiac death, major adverse cardiovascular events and stent thrombosis.

Coronary Angiography, Intravascular Ultrasound, and Optical Coherence Tomography for Guiding of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Results from multiple randomized clinical trials comparing outcomes after intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)- and optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with invasive coronary angiography (ICA)-guided PCI as well as a pivotal trial comparing the 2 intravascular imaging (IVI) techniques have provided mixed results.

METHODS

Major electronic databases were searched to identify eligible trials evaluating at least 2 PCI guidance strategies among ICA, IVUS, and OCT. The 2 coprimary outcomes were target lesion revascularization and myocardial infarction. The secondary outcomes included ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, target vessel myocardial infarction, death, cardiac death, target vessel revascularization, stent thrombosis, and major adverse cardiac events. Frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted. The results were replicated by Bayesian random-effects models. Pairwise meta-analyses of the direct components, multiple sensitivity analyses, and pairwise meta-analyses IVI versus ICA were supplemented.

RESULTS

The results from 24 randomized trials (15 489 patients: IVUS versus ICA, 46.4%, 7189 patients; OCT versus ICA, 32.1%, 4976 patients; OCT versus IVUS, 21.4%, 3324 patients) were included in the network meta-analyses. IVUS was associated with reduced target lesion revascularization compared with ICA (odds ratio [OR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.54-0.87]), whereas no significant differences were observed between OCT and ICA (OR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.63-1.09]) and OCT and IVUS (OR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.88-1.66]). Myocardial infarction did not significantly differ between guidance strategies (IVUS versus ICA: OR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.70-1.19]; OCT versus ICA: OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.68-1.11]; OCT versus IVUS: OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.69-1.33]). These results were consistent with the secondary outcomes of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, and sensitivity analyses generally did not reveal inconsistency. OCT was associated with a significant reduction of stent thrombosis compared with ICA (OR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.26-0.92]) but only in the frequentist analysis. Similarly, the results in terms of survival between IVUS or OCT and ICA were uncertain across analyses. A total of 25 randomized trials (17 128 patients) were included in the pairwise meta-analyses IVI versus ICA where IVI guidance was associated with reduced target lesion revascularization, cardiac death, and stent thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

IVI-guided PCI was associated with a reduction in ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization compared with ICA-guided PCI, with the difference most evident for IVUS. In contrast, no significant differences in myocardial infarction were observed between guidance strategies.

Intravascular imaging-guided coronary drug-eluting stent implantation: an updated network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses have shown reduced risks of composite adverse events with intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with angiography guidance alone. However, these studies have been insufficiently powered to show whether all-cause death or all myocardial infarction are reduced with intravascular imaging guidance, and most previous intravascular imaging studies were done with intravascular ultrasound rather than optical coherence tomography (OCT), a newer imaging modality. We aimed to assess the comparative performance of intravascular imaging-guided PCI and angiography-guided PCI with drug-eluting stents.

METHODS

For this systematic review and updated meta-analysis, we searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception to Aug 30, 2023, for studies that randomly assigned patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents either to intravascular ultrasound or OCT, or both, or to angiography alone to guide the intervention. The searches were done and study-level data were extracted independently by two investigators. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure, defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel-myocardial infarction (TV-MI), or target lesion revascularisation, assessed in patients randomly assigned to intravascular imaging guidance (intravascular ultrasound or OCT) versus angiography guidance. We did a standard frequentist meta-analysis to generate direct data, and a network meta-analysis to generate indirect data and overall treatment effects. Outcomes were expressed as relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs at the longest reported follow-up duration. This study was registered with the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO, number CRD42023455662).

FINDINGS

22 trials were identified in which 15 964 patients were randomised and followed for a weighted mean duration of 24·7 months (longest duration of follow-up in each study ranging from 6 to 60 months). Compared with angiography-guided PCI, intravascular imaging-guided PCI resulted in a decreased risk of target lesion failure (RR 0·71 [95% CI 0·63-0·80]; p<0·0001), driven by reductions in the risks of cardiac death (RR 0·55 [95% CI 0·41-0·75]; p=0·0001), TV-MI (RR 0·82 [95% CI 0·68-0·98]; p=0·030), and target lesion revascularisation (RR 0·72 [95% CI 0·60-0·86]; p=0·0002). Intravascular imaging guidance also reduced the risks of stent thrombosis (RR 0·52 [95% CI 0·34-0·81]; p=0·0036), all myocardial infarction (RR 0·83 [95% CI 0·71-0·99]; p=0·033), and all-cause death (RR 0·75 [95% CI 0·60-0·93]; p=0·0091). Outcomes were similar for OCT-guided and intravascular ultrasound-guided PCI.

INTERPRETATION

Compared with angiography guidance, intravascular imaging guidance of coronary stent implantation with OCT or intravascular ultrasound enhances both the safety and effectiveness of PCI, reducing the risks of death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularisation, and stent thrombosis.

FUNDING

Abbott.

Cost-Effectiveness of Intravascular Imaging-Guided Complex PCI: Prespecified Analysis of RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI Trial

BACKGROUND

Although clinical benefits of intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with complex coronary artery lesions have been observed in previous trials, the cost-effectiveness of this strategy is uncertain.

METHODS

RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI (Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance vs Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) was conducted in Korea between May 2018 and May 2021. This prespecified cost-effectiveness substudy was conducted using Markov model that simulated 3 states: (1) post-PCI, (2) spontaneous myocardial infarction, and (3) death. A simulated cohort was derived from the intention-to-treat population, and input parameters were extracted from either the trial data or previous publications. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using time horizon of 3 years (within trial) and lifetime. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), an indicator of incremental cost on additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, in intravascular imaging-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI. The current analysis was performed using the Korean health care sector perspective with reporting the results in US dollar (1200 Korean Won, ₩=1 dollar, $). Willingness to pay threshold was $35 000 per QALY gained.

RESULTS

A total of 1639 patients were included in the trial. During 3-year follow-up, medical costs ($8661 versus $7236; incremental cost, $1426) and QALY (2.34 versus 2.31; incremental QALY, 0.025) were both higher in intravascular imaging-guided PCI than angiography-guided PCI, resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $57 040 per QALY gained within trial data. Conversely, lifetime simulation showed total cumulative medical cost was reversed between the 2 groups ($40 455 versus $49 519; incremental cost, -$9063) with consistently higher QALY (8.24 versus 7.89; incremental QALY, 0.910) in intravascular imaging-guided PCI than angiography-guided PCI, resulting in a dominant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Consistently, 70% of probabilistic iterations showed cost-effectiveness of intravascular imaging-guided PCI in probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The current cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that imaging-guided PCI is more cost-effective than angiography-guided PCI by reducing medical cost and increasing quality-of-life in complex coronary artery lesions in long-term follow-up.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03381872.

OPTImized coronary interventions eXplaIn the bEst cliNical outcomEs (OPTI-XIENCE) study. Rationale and study design

INTRODUCTION

Clinical events may occur after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), particularly in complex lesions and complex patients. The optimization of PCI result, using pressure guidewire and intracoronary imaging techniques, may reduce the risk of these events. The hypothesis of the present study is that the clinical outcome of patients with indication of PCI and coronary stent implantation that are at high risk of events can be improved with an unrestricted use of intracoronary tools that allow PCI optimization.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Observational prospective multicenter international study, with a follow-up of 12 months, including 1064 patients treated with a cobalt‑chromium everolimus-eluting stent. Inclusion criteria include any of the following: Lesion length > 28 mm; Reference vessel diameter < 2.5 mm or > 4.25 mm; Chronic total occlusion; Bifurcation with side branch ≥2.0 mm;Ostial lesion; Left main lesion; In-stent restenosis; >2 lesions stented in the same vessel; Treatment of >2 vessels; Acute myocardial infarction; Renal insufficiency; Left ventricular ejection fraction <30 %; Staged procedure. The control group will be comprised by a similar number of matched patients included in the "extended risk" cohort of the XIENCE V USA study. The primary endpoint will be the 1-year rate of target lesion failure (TLF) (composite of ischemia-driven TLR, myocardial infarction (MI) related to the target vessel, or cardiac death related to the target vessel). Secondary endpoints will include overall mortality, cardiovascular mortality, acute myocardial infarction, TVR, TLR, target vessel failure, and definitive or probable stent thrombosis at 1 year.

IMPLICATIONS

The ongoing OPTI-XIENCE study will contribute to the growing evidence supporting the use of intra-coronary imaging techniques for stent optimization in patients with complex coronary lesions.

Guiding Intervention for Complex Coronary Lesions by Optical Coherence Tomography or Intravascular Ultrasound

BACKGROUND

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) have shown comparable outcomes in guiding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, their comparative effectiveness in complex coronary artery lesions remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

This study compared the effectiveness and safety of OCT-guided vs IVUS-guided PCI for complex coronary artery lesions.

METHODS

This was a prespecified, main subgroup analysis of complex coronary artery lesions in the OCTIVUS (Optical Coherence Tomography Versus Intravascular Ultrasound Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial, which included unprotected left main disease, bifurcation disease, an aorto-ostial lesion, a chronic total occlusion, a severely calcified lesion, an in-stent restenotic lesion, a diffuse long lesion, or multivessel PCI. The primary endpoint was a composite of death from cardiac causes, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization.

RESULTS

In 2,008 randomized patients, 1,475 (73.5%) underwent imaging-guided PCI for complex coronary artery lesions; 719 (48.7%) received OCT-guided and 756 (51.3%) IVUS-guided PCI. At a median follow-up of 2.0 years, primary endpoint event had occurred in 47 patients (6.5%) in the OCT-guided group and in 56 patients (7.4%) in the IVUS-guided group (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.59-1.29; P = 0.50). These findings were consistent in adjusted analyses. The incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy was similar between the 2 groups (1.9% vs 1.5%; P = 0.46). The incidence of major procedural complications was lower in the OCT-guided group than in the IVUS-guided group (1.7% vs 3.4%; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with complex coronary artery lesions, OCT-guided PCI showed a similar risk of primary composite event of death from cardiac causes, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization as compared with IVUS-guided PCI. (Optical Coherence Tomography Versus Intravascular Ultrasound Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [OCTIVUS]; NCT03394079).

Intravascular Imaging-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Before and After Standardized Optimization Protocols

BACKGROUND

Although benefits of intravascular imaging (IVI) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have been observed in previous studies, it is not known whether changes in contemporary practice, especially with application of standardized optimization protocols, have improved clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to investigate whether clinical outcomes of IVI-guided PCI are different before and after the application of standardized optimization protocols in using IVI.

METHODS

2,972 patients from an institutional registry (2008-2015, before application of standardized optimization protocols, the past group) and 1,639 patients from a recently published trial (2018-2021 after application of standardized optimization protocols, the present group) were divided into 2 groups according to use of IVI. The primary outcome was 3-year target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization.

RESULTS

Significant reduction of TVF was observed in the IVI-guided PCI group compared with the angiography-guided PCI group (10.0% vs 6.7%; HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.61-0.97; P = 0.027), mainly driven by reduced cardiac death or myocardial infarction in both past and present IVI-guided PCI groups. When comparing past IVI and present IVI groups, TVF was significantly lower in the present IVI group (8.5% vs 5.1%; HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.42-0.94; P = 0.025), with the difference being driven by reduced target vessel revascularization in the present IVI group. Consistent results were observed in inverse-probability-weighting adjusted analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

IVI-guided PCI improved clinical outcomes more than angiography-guided PCI. In addition, application of standardized optimization protocols when using IVI further improved clinical outcomes after PCI. (Intravascular Imaging- Versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention For Complex Coronary Artery Disease [RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI]; NCT03381872; and the institutional cardiovascular catheterization database of Samsung Medical Center: Long-Term Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in Patient Undergoing CABG or PCI; NCT03870815).

Intravascular Imaging-Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

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.

Comparison of Intravascular Imaging, Functional, or Angiographically Guided Coronary Intervention

BACKGROUND

In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), it remains unclear whether intravascular imaging guidance or functional guidance is the best strategy to optimize outcomes and if the results are different in patients with vs without acute coronary syndromes (ACS).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes with imaging-guided PCI or functionally guided PCI when compared with conventional angiography-guided PCI.

METHODS

We searched PUBMED and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials investigating outcomes with intravascular imaging-guided, functionally guided, or angiography-guided PCI. The primary outcome from this network meta-analysis was trial-defined major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)-a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization (TLR). PCI strategies were ranked (best to worst) using P scores.

RESULTS

Our search identified 32 eligible randomized controlled trials and included a total of 22,684 patients. Compared with angiography-guided PCI, intravascular imaging-guided PCI was associated with reduced risk of MACE (relative risk [RR]: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.62-0.82), cardiovascular death (RR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.42-0.75), MI (RR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.66-0.99), stent thrombosis (RR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.31-0.73), and TLR (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.57-0.99). Similarly, when compared with angiography-guided PCI, functionally guided PCI was associated with reduced risk of MACE and MI. Intravascular imaging-guided PCI ranked first for the outcomes of MACE, cardiovascular death, stent thrombosis, and TLR. The results were consistent in the ACS and non-ACS cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Angiography-guided PCI had consistently worse outcomes compared with intravascular imaging-guided and functionally guided PCI. Intravascular imaging-guided PCI was the best strategy to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.

Role of Intravascular Imaging in Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Intravascular imaging (IVI) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been shown to improve clinical outcomes. However, data is limited in complex PCI and the adoption remains low. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of all available randomized controlled trials comparing IVI with conventional angiography in patients who underwent complex PCI. The primary outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiovascular events, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization. Random-effects model was used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 10 randomized controlled trials comprising 6,368 patients with 3,452 in the IVI group and 2,916 in the angiography group were included. The mean duration of follow up was 2 years, mean age was 65 years and 73% of patients were men. As compared with PCI with routine angiography, the IVI-guided PCI group had significantly lower risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.75, p <0.00001), stent thrombosis (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.92, p = 0.02), cardiovascular deaths (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.68, p = 0.0001), target lesion revascularization (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.78, p <0.0001) and target vessel revascularization (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.80, p = 0.0003). All-cause deaths and MI were similar in the 2 groups. In conclusion, among patients who underwent complex PCI, IVI reduces adverse events, importantly stent thrombosis and repeat revascularizations, compared with angiography alone guided PCI.

Clinical Benefit of Intravascular Imaging Compared With Conventional Angiography in Left Main Coronary Artery Intervention

BACKGROUND

The RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI (Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance Versus Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) demonstrated that intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improved clinical outcome compared with angiography-guided PCI for patients with complex coronary artery lesions. This study aims to assess whether the prognostic benefit of intravascular imaging-guided procedural optimization persists in patients undergoing PCI for left main coronary artery disease.

METHODS

Of 1639 patients enrolled in the RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI, 192 patients with left main coronary artery disease were selected for the current prespecified substudy. Selected patients were randomly assigned to either the intravascular imaging-guided PCI group (n=138) or the angiography-guided PCI group (n=54). The primary end point was target vessel failure defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up of 2.1 years (interquartile range 1.1 to 3.0 years), intravascular imaging-guided PCI was associated with lower incidence of primary end point compared with angiography-guided PCI (6.8% versus 25.1%; hazard ratio, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.13-0.76]; P=0.010). This significant reduction in primary end point was mainly driven by a lower risk of cardiac death or spontaneous target vessel-related myocardial infarction (1.6% versus 12.7%; hazard ratio, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.03-0.82]; P=0.028). Intravascular imaging-guided PCI was independently associated with a lower risk of primary end point, even after adjusting for various clinical factors (hazard ratio, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.12-0.72]; P=0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravascular imaging-guided PCI showed clinical benefit over angiography-guided PCI for left main coronary artery disease in reducing the risk of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03381872.

Intravascular imaging guided versus coronary angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the absolute treatment effects of intravascular imaging guided versus angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with coronary artery disease, considering their baseline risk.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to 31 August 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials comparing intravascular imaging (intravascular ultrasonography or optical coherence tomography) guided versus coronary angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention in adults with coronary artery disease.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Random effect meta-analysis and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) were used to assess certainty of evidence. Data included rate ratios and absolute risks per 1000 people for cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, target vessel revascularization, and target lesion revascularization. Absolute risk differences were estimated using SYNTAX risk categories for baseline risks at five years, assuming constant rate ratios across different cardiovascular risk thresholds.

RESULTS

In 20 randomized controlled trials (n=11 698), intravascular imaging guided percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a reduced risk of cardiac death (rate ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.72), myocardial infarction (0.81, 0.68 to 0.97), stent thrombosis (0.44, 0.27 to 0.72), target vessel revascularization (0.74, 0.61 to 0.89), and target lesion revascularization (0.71, 0.59 to 0.86) but not all cause death (0.81, 0.64 to 1.02). Using SYNTAX risk categories, high certainty evidence showed that from low risk to high risk, intravascular imaging was likely associated with 23 to 64 fewer cardiac deaths, 15 to 19 fewer myocardial infarctions, 9 to 13 fewer stent thrombosis events, 28 to 38 fewer target vessel revascularization events, and 35 to 48 fewer target lesion revascularization events per 1000 people.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with coronary angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention, intravascular imaging guided percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with significantly reduced cardiac death and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. The estimated absolute effects of intravascular imaging guided percutaneous coronary intervention showed a proportional relation with baseline risk, driven by the severity and complexity of coronary artery disease.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023433568.

Intravascular Imaging in Patients With Complex Coronary Lesions and Chronic Kidney Disease

Importance

As patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are more likely to have complex coronary lesions, intravascular imaging guidance in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for this population could be potentially beneficial.

Objectives

To investigate whether the outcomes of intravascular imaging-guided procedural optimization would be different according to the presence of CKD.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a prespecified substudy of RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI, a recently published multicenter randomized clinical trial in Korea studying the benefits of intravascular imaging for complex coronary lesions. Patients with complex coronary lesions, with or without CKD, were enrolled between May 2018 and May 2021. Data were analyzed from January to June 2023.

Interventions

PCI in each group was done either under the guidance of intravascular imaging or angiography alone.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was target vessel failure (TVF) at the 3-year point, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization.

Results

A total of 1639 patients (1300 male [79.3%]) treated with PCI for complex coronary lesions were stratified into CKD (296 participants) and non-CKD (1343 participants) groups. The mean (SD) age of each group was 70.3 (9.4) and 64.5 (10.1) years, and mean (SD) estimated serum creatinine was 2.9 (5.3) and 0.8 (0.2) mg/dL for CKD and non-CKD groups, respectively. Intravascular imaging-guided revascularization was associated with significantly lower incidence of the primary end point compared with angiography-guided revascularization in both CKD (13.3% vs 23.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.27-0.93; P = .03) and non-CKD (6.4% vs 9.9%; HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.44-0.99; P = .05) groups. The significantly lower incidence of the primary end point was mainly associated with the lower risk of cardiac death or target vessel-related myocardial infarction (9.4% vs 22.2%; HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.20-0.76; P = .006) in the CKD group and by target vessel revascularization (3.0% vs 5.5%; HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.30-0.99; P = .05) in the non-CKD group. Those with a glomerular filtration rate of at least 30 mL/min/1.73m2 and less than 60 ml/kg/1.73m2 showed the greatest benefit from imaging-guided complex PCI (8.8% vs 21.2%; HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11-0.68; P = .02).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this prespecified cohort substudy of the Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance versus Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention trial, intravascular imaging guidance showed clinical benefit over angiography guidance in reducing the risk of TVF, regardless of the presence of CKD. The greatest benefits of imaging-guided complex PCI were observed in stage 3 CKD.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03381872.

Optical Coherence Tomography-Guided or Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The OCTIVUS Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT) showed superior clinical outcomes compared with angiography-guided PCI. However, the comparative effectiveness of OCT-guided and IVUS-guided PCI regarding clinical outcomes is unknown.

METHODS

In this prospective, multicenter, open-label, pragmatic trial, we randomly assigned 2008 patients with significant coronary artery lesions undergoing PCI in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either an OCT-guided or IVUS-guided PCI. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiac causes, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization at 1 year, which was powered for noninferiority of the OCT group compared with the IVUS group. Safety outcomes were also assessed.

RESULTS

At 1 year, primary end point events occurred in 25 of 1005 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 2.5%) in the OCT group and in 31 of 1003 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 3.1%) in the IVUS group (absolute difference, -0.6 percentage points; upper boundary of one-sided 97.5% CI, 0.97 percentage points; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy was similar (14 patients [1.4%] in the OCT group versus 15 patients [1.5%] in the IVUS group; P=0.85). The incidence of major procedural complications was lower in the OCT group than in the IVUS group (22 [2.2%] versus 37 [3.7%]; P=0.047), although imaging procedure-related complications were not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with significant coronary artery lesions, OCT-guided PCI was noninferior to IVUS-guided PCI with respect to the incidence of a composite of death from cardiac causes, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization at 1 year. The selected study population and lower-than-expected event rates should be considered in interpreting the trial.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique number: NCT03394079.

State-of-art review: intravascular imaging in percutaneous coronary interventions

The history of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) reflects the relentless pursuit of innovation in interventional cardiology. These intravascular imaging technologies have played a pivotal role in our understanding of coronary atherosclerosis, vascular pathology, and the interaction of coronary stents with the vessel wall. Two decades of clinical investigations demonstrating the clinical efficacy and safety of intravascular imaging modalities have established these technologies as staples in the contemporary cardiac catheterization lab's toolbox and earning their place in revascularization clinical practice guidelines. In this comprehensive review, we will delve into the historical evolution, mechanisms, and technical aspects of IVUS and OCT. We will discuss the expanding evidence supporting their use in complex percutaneous coronary interventions, emphasizing their crucial roles in optimizing patient outcomes and ensuring procedural success. Furthermore, we will explore the substantial advances that have propelled these imaging modalities to the forefront of contemporary interventional cardiology. Finally, we will survey the latest developments in the field and explore the promising future directions that have the potential to further revolutionize coronary interventions.

The Racial Differences in the Clinical Outcomes of Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been reported to significantly reduce major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) compared with angiography-guided PCI. We aimed to explore whether there were racial differences regarding the beneficial effects of IVUS-guided PCI. Randomized controlled trials for comparison of clinical outcomes between IVUS-guided and angiography-guided PCI were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to March 15, 2023. The clinical outcomes included MACE, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and stent thrombosis (ST). Finally, 18 randomized controlled trials were included in this study (8 in East Asian patients and 10 in Western patients). Results showed that IVUS-guided PCI was associated with a significant reduction of MACE, TVR, TLR, and ST, but not all-cause mortality and MI in both East Asian and Western patients. The reduction of MACE was more significant in East Asian patients (odds ratio [OR] 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46 to 0.70) than that in Western patients (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.02). Meta-regression analysis revealed that the country the study was performed in (East Asian vs Western countries) was associated with significant heterogeneity between groups, suggesting that racial differences existed (p = 0.033). In conclusion, IVUS-guided PCI was associated with a lower risk of MACE, TLR, TVR, and ST, but not all-cause mortality and MI in both East Asians and Westerners. East Asians benefited more than Westerners upon using IVUS-guided PCI in reducing MACE, suggesting that racial differences do exist between different imaging methods. Larger-sample studies are warranted for further clarification of our findings.

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.

Comparison of definitions of coronary artery reference sizes and effects on stent selection and evaluation of stent expansion

Accurate determination of coronary reference size is essential for optimal stent selection and evaluation of stent expansion during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Several approaches for reference size estimation have been published with no universal agreement. The aim of this study was to investigate if potential differences in coronary reference size estimation lead to differences in stent and balloon selection and in detection of stent under expansion. Definitions for coronary reference size estimation, stent size selection, and stent expansion were identified in 17 randomized controlled trials. The identified methods were applied in a population of 32 clinical cases. Reference size estimates ranged up to 1.35mm, and indicated nominal stent size ranged up to 1.0 mm in the same case depending on method. Mean relative stent expansion ranged from 54±12% to mean 100±29% depending on the applied reference method. Choice of method for reference size estimation using intravascular imaging may influence stent selection and greatly affects evaluation of post-PCI stent expansion.

Intracoronary Imaging Versus Coronary Angiography Guidance for Implantation of Second and Third Generation Drug Eluting Stents in a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Intracoronary imaging (ICI) facilitates stent implant by characterizing the lesion calcification, providing accurate vessel dimensions, and optimizing the stent results. We sought to investigate the outcomes of routine ICI versus coronary angiography (CA) to guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with second- and third-generation drug-eluting stents. A systematic search of PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane databases was conducted from their inception to July 16, 2022 for randomized controlled trials comparing routine ICI with CA. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events. The secondary outcomes of interest were target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and cardiac and all-cause mortality. A random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled incidence and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 9 randomized controlled trials with 5,879 patients (2,870 ICI-guided and 3,009 CA-guided PCI) met the inclusion criteria. The ICI and CA groups were similar in demographic characteristics and co-morbidity profiles. Compared with CA, patients in the routine ICI-guided PCI group had lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.78, p <0.0001), target lesion revascularization (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.83, p = 0.002), target vessel revascularization (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.00, p = 0.05), and myocardial infarction (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.95, p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in stent thrombosis or cardiac/all-cause mortality between the 2 strategies. In conclusion, routine ICI-guided PCI strategy, compared with CA guidance alone, is associated with improved clinical outcomes, largely driven by lower repeat revascularization.

Outcomes of Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction-Propensity Matched Regression Analysis

Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is indicated in complex interventions. There is a paucity of evidence for outcomes with large studies on using IVUS during PCI in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Our objective was to compare the in-hospital outcome of IVUS-guided with that of nonguided PCI among NSTEMI hospitalizations. The National Inpatient Sample (2016 to 2019) was queried to identify all hospitalizations with a principal diagnosis of NSTEMI. In our study, we compared outcomes of PCI with and without IVUS guidance using a multivariate logistic regression model after propensity score matching, with the primary outcome being in-hospital mortality. A total of 671,280 NSTEMI-related hospitalizations were identified, of whom 48,285 (7.2%) underwent IVUS-guided PCI compared with 622,995 (92.8%) who underwent non-IVUS PCI. After adjusted analysis on matched pairs, we found that IVUS-guided PCI had a lower risk of in-hospital mortality than that of non-IVUS PCI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.736, confidence interval (CI) 0.578 to 0.937, p = 0.013). However, there was a higher use of mechanical circulatory support in the IVUS-guided PCI (aOR 2.138, CI 1.84 to 2.47, p <0.001) than in non-IVUS PCI. The odds of cardiogenic shock (aOR 1.11, CI 0.93 to 1.32, p = 0.233) and procedural complications (aOR 0.794, CI 0.549 to 1.14, p = 0.22) were similar between the cohorts. Hence, we conclude that patients with NSTEMIs who underwent IVUS-guided PCI had less risk of in-hospital mortality and a greater requirement of mechanical circulatory support than did those who underwent non-IVUS PCI, with no difference in procedural complications. Large prospective trials are essential to validate these findings.

Prognostic Impact of Operator Experience and IVUS Guidance on Long-Term Clinical Outcomes After Complex PCI

BACKGROUND

Although consistent clinical data support intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) use during complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), long-term follow-up outcomes on differential effects of IVUS according to operator experience are scarce.

OBJECTIVES

The current study aimed to evaluate the influence of operator experience on lesion complexity, long-term clinical outcomes, and the interactions of IVUS guidance in patients undergoing complex PCI.

METHODS

A total of 6,005 patients who underwent PCI with drug-eluting stents for complex lesions were recruited from the institutional registry of Samsung Medical Center. The study population was stratified by the use of IVUS and operator experience (less experienced operator [lifetime independent experience with PCI ≤5 years] vs experienced operator). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death or target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI) up to 10 years.

RESULTS

Compared with less experienced operators, experienced operators used IVUS more frequently (29.6% [1,128/3,805] vs 24.8% [546/2,200]; P < 0.001) and achieved a lower risk of cardiac death or TVMI (experienced vs less experienced, adjusted HR: 0.779; 95% CI: 0.663-0.915; P = 0.002). IVUS use was associated with a significantly lower risk of cardiac death or TVMI than angiography alone for less experienced operators (23.5% vs 11.4%; adjusted HR: 0.477; 95% CI: 0.337-0.673; P < 0.001) as well as experienced operators (18.0% vs 13.5%; adjusted HR: 0.747; 95% CI: 0.559-0.998; P = 0.048). There were significant interactions for the risk of cardiac death or TVMI between IVUS use and operator experience (P = 0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

PCI by experienced operators and the use of IVUS during complex PCI were independently associated with lower long-term risks of cardiac death or TVMI. The beneficial effects of IVUS were more prominent for less experienced operators. (Prospective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Registry [SMC-PCI]; NCT05624905).

Intracoronary Imaging and Physiology to Guide PCI: Are We Ready for a Class I Guideline Recommendation?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Over the last decade, there has been a plethora of evidence to support the utilization of intravascular coronary imaging and physiological assessment to guide percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). While there is a class I recommendation for the use of coronary physiology to guide PCI, the use of intravascular coronary imaging remains a class IIa recommendation. Herein, we aimed to review the recent scientific evidence from major trials highlighting the consideration for a future class I guideline recommendation for the use of intracoronary imaging.

RECENT FINDINGS

The benefits of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) to guide and optimize PCI have been demonstrated in several large trials. These trials have demonstrated that IVUS reduces major adverse cardiovascular events. Similarly, intracoronary physiology has been demonstrated to be an important tool to guide revascularization decision-making and been associated with a lower incidence of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization compared with angiography alone. With existing clinical outcomes data on the benefit of intracoronary physiology and imaging-guided PCI as well as forthcoming data from ongoing trials regarding the use of these modalities, the interventional cardiology community is bound to transition from routine PCI to precision-, image-, and physiology-guided PCI.

Intravascular Imaging-Guided or Angiography-Guided Complex PCI

BACKGROUND

Data regarding clinical outcomes after intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for complex coronary-artery lesions, as compared with outcomes after angiography-guided PCI, are limited.

METHODS

In this prospective, multicenter, open-label trial in South Korea, we randomly assigned patients with complex coronary-artery lesions in a 2:1 ratio to undergo either intravascular imaging-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. In the intravascular imaging group, the choice between intravascular ultrasonography and optical coherence tomography was at the operators' discretion. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target-vessel revascularization. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 1639 patients underwent randomization, with 1092 assigned to undergo intravascular imaging-guided PCI and 547 assigned to undergo angiography-guided PCI. At a median follow-up of 2.1 years (interquartile range, 1.4 to 3.0), a primary end-point event had occurred in 76 patients (cumulative incidence, 7.7%) in the intravascular imaging group and in 60 patients (cumulative incidence, 12.3%) in the angiography group (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.45 to 0.89; P = 0.008). Death from cardiac causes occurred in 16 patients (cumulative incidence, 1.7%) in the intravascular imaging group and in 17 patients (cumulative incidence, 3.8%) in the angiography group; target-vessel-related myocardial infarction occurred in 38 (cumulative incidence, 3.7%) and 30 (cumulative incidence, 5.6%), respectively; and clinically driven target-vessel revascularization in 32 (cumulative incidence, 3.4%) and 25 (cumulative incidence, 5.5%), respectively. There were no apparent between-group differences in the incidence of procedure-related safety events.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with complex coronary-artery lesions, intravascular imaging-guided PCI led to a lower risk of a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target-vessel revascularization than angiography-guided PCI. (Supported by Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific; RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03381872).

Intracoronary Imaging of Proximal Coronary Artery Lesions A Nationwide Lesion-Level Analysis From SCAAR

Background

Current evidence suggests that use of intracoronary imaging during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the left main coronary artery (LMCA) reduces mortality. However, there is a scarcity of data on the overall role of intracoronary imaging, particularly in other non-LMCA proximal coronary artery lesions. We aimed to investigate the association of use of intracoronary imaging on outcome in proximal lesions treated with PCI.

Methods

The Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry was used to identify all proximal coronary artery lesions treated with stent implantation between June 11, 2013, and January 16, 2021. Proximal coronary artery lesions (LMCA, proximal left anterior descending artery, left circumflex artery, and right coronary artery) assessed by intracoronary imaging before and/or after stent implantation were matched to control lesions treated based on angiography alone using propensity score matching. The primary end point was target lesion revascularization with PCI, and secondary end points included all-cause mortality and definite stent thrombosis within 3 years.

Results

Among the 3623 matched pairs, intracoronary imaging was associated with significantly lower risk of target lesion revascularization, 3.7% vs 4.7%; hazard ratio (HR), 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.97; P = .025, and all-cause mortality, 9.1% vs 12.8%; HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61-0.81; P < .001, with no difference in definite stent thrombosis.

Conclusions

The use of intracoronary imaging in proximal coronary artery lesions is associated with lower rates of repeat revascularization and better survival. The results appear to be primarily driven by improved outcome of LMCA lesions. These results reinforce the role of intracoronary imaging in assessing and treating proximal coronary lesions.

Utilization Rate and Outcomes of Intravascular Imaging in Elderly Patients Presenting With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) represent a vulnerable population with comorbid conditions and complex coronary anatomy. We aimed to describe the utilization rate and outcomes of intravascular imaging to guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in this population.

METHODS

The Nationwide Readmissions Database was queried for all hospitalizations for STEMI involving PCI from 2018 to 2019. Hospitalizations were stratified by patient age into a younger cohort <75 years (mean age 58.7 ± 9.5 years) and an older cohort ≥75 years. Propensity score-weighed regression analysis was used to identify the association of intravascular imaging with in-hospital mortality, 90-day all-cause readmission, and readmission for myocardial infarction (MI).

RESULTS

A total of 299,619 STEMI PCI hospitalizations were included. Intravascular imaging was utilized less frequently in the older cohort (6.8 % vs 7.8 %, odds ratio [OR] 0.87, 95 % CI 0.82-0.92, p < 0.001). In both cohorts, intravascular imaging was more likely to be used with anterior STEMI, complex PCI, mechanical support, and thrombectomy. Propensity score analysis showed the use of intravascular imaging was associated with lower in-hospital mortality in both cohorts (OR 0.60, 95 % CI 0.52-0.68, p < 0.001 in the younger cohort and OR 0.61, 95 % CI 0.51-0.72, p < 0.001 in the older cohort). There was no difference in 90-day all-cause readmission or readmission for MI with intravascular imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravascular imaging during STEMI PCI is associated with lower in-hospital mortality regardless of age. Further studies are needed to understand the low utilization rates especially among elderly patients.

Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance Is Associated with a Favorable One-Year Target Vessel Failure Rate and No Residual Myocardial Ischemia after the Percutaneous Treatment of Very Long Coronary Artery Lesions

Background: Studies have shown that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in long coronary artery lesions (≥30 mm) is associated with more frequent target vessel failure (TVF), and a significant proportion of patients have lesions that continue to induce ischemia after PCI (FFR ≤ 0.8). We investigated the impact of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) on the functional PCI result and one-year TVF rate after the percutaneous treatment of long coronary artery lesions. Methods: A total of 80 patients underwent IVUS-guided PCI in long coronary artery lesions. The PCI results were validated with IVUS and FFR. Procedural outcomes were the proportion of patients with: (1) optimal physiology result (post PCI FFR value ≥ 0.9); (2) optimal anatomy result (all IVUS PCI optimization criteria met); and (3) optimal physiology and anatomy result. The clinical outcome was TVF during a one-year follow-up (target vessel (TV)-related death, TV myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven TV revascularization). Results: The mean stented segment length was 62 mm. The target vessel (TV) was the left anterior descending artery in 82.5% of cases. There were no patients with residual ischemia (FFR ≤ 0.8) after PCI. Optimal coronary flow (FFR ≥ 0.9) was achieved in 37.5%; optimal anatomy, as assessed by IVUS, was achieved in 68.4%; and both optimal flow and anatomy were achieved in 25% of patients. Target vessel failure during the 12-month follow-up was 2.5%. Conclusions: In the percutaneous treatment of very long coronary artery lesions, the use of IVUS guidance is associated with a low TVF rate during a one-year follow-up and no residual myocardial ischemia, as assessed by FFR.

Efficacy of intravascular imaging-guided drug-eluting stent implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background

Traditional angiography only displays two-dimensional images of the coronary arteries during stent implantation. However, intravascular imaging can show the structure of the vascular wall, plaque characteristics. This article aims to evaluate the efficacy of intravascular imaging-guided drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation.

Method

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of intravascular imaging-guided, including patients with DES implantation guided by intravascular ultrasound or optical coherence tomography and traditional angiography. The databases of PubMed, EMBASE, web of science, and Cochrane Library were searched. The primary outcome was target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary outcomes included the target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), cardiac death, all-cause death, and the major adverse cardiac events (MACE) during the 6–24 months follow-up. The fixed-effects model was used to calculate the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval of the outcome event. Meanwhile, the trial sequence analysis was employed to evaluate the results.

Result

This meta-analysis included fourteen randomized controlled trials with 7307 patients. Compared with angiography-guided, intravascular imaging-guided DES implantation can significantly reduce the risk of TLR (RR 0.63, 0.49–0.82, P = 0.0004), TVR (RR 0.66, 0.52–0.85, P = 0.001), cardiac death (RR 0.58; 0.38–0.89; P = 0.01), MACE (RR 0.67, 0.57–0.79; P < 0.00001) and ST (RR 0.43, 0.24–0.78; P = 0.005). While there was no significant difference regarding MI (RR 0.77, 0.57–1.05, P = 0.10) and all-cause death (RR 0.87, 0.58–1.30, P = 0.50).

Conclusions

Compared with angiography, intravascular imaging-guided DES implantation is associated with better clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease, especially complex lesions (Registered by PROSPERO, CRD 42021289205).

Network Meta-analysis of Trials Comparing Intravascular Ultrasound, Optical Coherence Tomography, and Angiography-Guided Technique for Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation

Background

The current advances in coronary imaging with the introduction of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), and more recently, optical coherence tomography (OCT) have overcome the limitations of coronary angiography.

Objective

This study aimed to conduct a comprehensive network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials to report clinical outcomes among patients undergoing drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation either by IVUS- or OCT-guided technique or angiography alone.

Methods

PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched systematically for all relevant published randomized clinical trials from the inception of the respective database to October 15th, 2021. The outcomes of interest assessed in this meta-analysis were major adverse cardiac events, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. All the endpoints were expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI. The network diagrams were computed using the OR as an effective measure. All statistical analyses were carried out in R statistical software version 4.0.3.

Results

A total of 14 randomized clinical trials were included in our meta-analysis. In patient undergoing DES implantation, angiography alone was associated with higher odds of major adverse cardiac events (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.17-2.24), target vessel revascularization (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.21-2.13) and cardiovascular mortality (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.25-3.11). However, OCT demonstrated similar odds of major adverse cardiac events, cardiovascular mortality, and target vessel revascularization compared with IVUS. The odds of myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality were similar among all the 3 groups.

Conclusions

Although angiography alone was associated with worse outcomes than IVUS in a patient undergoing DES implantation, no difference in outcome was noted between patients undergoing DES implantation with OCT compared with IVUS. Advanced intracoronary imaging use should be encouraged to prevent excess mortality and morbidity.

Intravascular Imaging for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Guidance and Optimization: The Evidence for Improved Patient Outcomes

As of this writing, there have been approximately 24 randomized controlled trial publications, 32 meta-analyses, and 85 registries comparing intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT) versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation (or IVUS versus OCT guidance). Although in specific clinical scenarios IVUS or OCT may be preferred, in most drug-eluting stent implantation procedures, either intravascular ultrasound or OCT can be used safely, efficiently, effectively, and interchangeably and will improve patient outcomes compared with stent implantation procedures performed just with angiography guidance.

Impact of intravascular ultrasound in acute myocardial infarction patients at high ischemic risk

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Evidence for the role of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients at high ischemic risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is lacking. This study aimed to investigate the long-term clinical impact of IVUS-guided PCI in patients at high ischemic risk of AMI.

METHODS

Among 13 104 patients with AMI enrolled in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institutes of Health, we selected 8890 patients who underwent successful PCI with second-generation drug-eluting stent implantation and classified them into 2 groups based on whether or not they were at high ischemic risk or not, defined as any of the following: number of stents implanted ≥ 3, 3 vessels treated, ≥ 3 lesions treated, total stent length> 60mm, left main PCI, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease. The primary outcome was target lesion failure including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization at 3 years.

RESULTS

In 4070 AMI patients at high ischemic risk, IVUS-guided PCI (21.6%) was associated with a significantly lower risk of target lesion failure at 3 years (6.7% vs 12.0%; HR, 0.54; 95%CI, 0.41-0.72; P <.001) than angiography-guided PCI. The results were consistent after confounder adjustment, inversed probability weighting, and propensity score matching.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients at high ischemic risk of AMI who underwent PCI with second-generation drug-eluting stent implantation, use of IVUS guidance was associated with a significant reduction in 3-year target lesion failure. iCreaT study No. C110016.

Comparison of Six Different Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Guidance Modalities

Background: New randomized trials and modalities in guiding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have become available. Objective: We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of coronary angiography (CAG), intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), optical coherence tomography (OCT), fractional flow reserve (FFR), instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), and optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI)-guided PCI. Methods: A network meta-analysis was performed to compare different PCI guidance modalities. The clinical outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel/lesion revascularization (TVR/TLR). Odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% credible interval (CrI) were calculated. Results: Thirty-six randomized trials, including 19,042 patients, were included. In comparison with CAG, IVUS significantly reduced MACE (OR: 0.71; 95% CrI: 0.57 to 0.86) and TVR/TLR (OR: 0.53; 95% CrI: 0.43 to 0.66). MACE (OR: 1.44; 95% CrI: 1.02 to 2.08) and TVR/TLR (OR: 1.87; 95% CrI: 1.04 to 3.71) were significantly increased in the FFR group, compared with IVUS group. There were no significant differences in MACE or TVR/TLR among the left guidance modality comparisons. Differences in all-cause death or MI were not observed in any comparisons. Conclusions: IVUS could reduce MACE and TVR/TLR, compared with CAG or FFR. Therefore, IVUS may be the optimal modality in guiding PCI.

The long-term clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided coronary drug eluting stent implantation in long de novo coronary lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

No meta-analysis has been conducted to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided versus angiographic-guided drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with long de novo coronary lesions. We attempted to compare the efficacy and safety of IVUS guidance versus angiography guidance in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for long de novo coronary lesions.

Materials and Methods

We performed a detailed meta-analysis from four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one observational study to compare long outcomes of IVUS versus angiography in guiding coronary stent implantation with long de novo coronary lesions defined as coronary stenosis which need stent implantation >28 mm in length. Data were aggregated for the endpoints measure using the fixed-effects model as pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Clinical outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all revascularization, including target lesion revascularization (TLR) and target vessel revascularization (TVR), all myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause death, and stent thrombosis (ST). Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched.

Results

Four RCTs and one observational study were included in our study with 3,349 patients (IVUS guidance = 1,708; Angiography guidance = 1,641). With mean follow-up of 2 years, the incidence of MACE, all myocardial infarction, all revascularization and stent thrombosis were significantly lower in IVUS-guided DES implantation of patients with long de novo coronary lesions than in angiography-guided patients; MACE [OR 0.41; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.29–0.58; p < 0.00001], all myocardial infarction (OR 0.23; 95% CI, 0.09–0.58; p = 0.002), all revascularization (OR 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36–0.66; p < 0.00001), stent thrombosis (OR 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11–0.89; p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the two groups (OR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.55–1.23; p = 0.34).

Conclusion

During mean follow-up of 2 years, the incidence of MACE, stent thrombosis, all myocardial infarction and revascularization in patients with long de novo coronary lesions under IVUS-guided PCI were significantly lower than angiography-guided PCI, and there were no statistically significant differences in all-cause mortality.

Clinical Outcomes Following Hemodynamic Parameter or Intravascular Imaging-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Era of Drug-Eluting Stents: An Updated Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of 28 Randomized Trials and 11,860 Patients

Background

Coronary angiography (CAG) is the standard imaging modality for guiding percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Intracoronary imaging techniques such as intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT), and hemodynamic parameter like fractional flow reserve (FFR) can overcome some limitations of CAG.

Objective

We sought to explore the clinical outcomes of different PCI guidance modalities in the era of drug-eluting stent (DES).

Methods

A network meta-analysis of 28 randomized trials and 11,860 patients undergoing different modalities-guided PCI in the era of DES was performed. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% credible interval (CrI) were calculated.

Results

In comparison with CAG, IVUS was associated with a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, OR: 0.60; 95% CrI: 0.46–0.79), cardiovascular death (OR: 0.46; 95% CrI: 0.20–0.94), target vessel/lesion revascularization (TVR/TLR, OR: 0.55; 95% CrI: 0.41–0.74), and a trend toward decreased risk of stent thrombosis (OR: 0.44; 95% CrI: 0.17 to 1.00). FFR/quantitative flow ratio (QFR) could significantly reduce stroke compared with CAG, IVUS, and OCT/optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI). However, myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause death, stent thrombosis, and any revascularization presented similar risks for different PCI guidance modalities.

Conclusion

In the era of DES, IVUS led to lower risks of MACE than CAG, which was mainly due to lower risks of cardiovascular death and TVR/TLR. A trend toward decreased risk of stent thrombosis was also observed with IVUS. Hemodynamic parameter (FFR/QFR)-guided PCI could significantly reduce the stroke risk compared with CAG, IVUS, and OCT/OFDI.

Systematic Review Registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/], identifier [CRD42021291442].