Abstract 17475: Intravascular Ultrasound versus Angiography in Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: A Meta-Analysis Unveiling Compelling Evidence of Ultrasound's Superiority

Abstract

Objective: This meta-analysis aims to compare the effectiveness of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) versus angiography alone in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify relevant studies comparing IVUS-guided PCI with angiography-guided PCI. The primary outcome measure was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, stent thrombosis, and angiographic outcomes. Results: A total of 41 eligible studies involving 712635 patients were included in the meta-analysis. IVUS-guided PCI was associated with a significantly lower risk of MACE compared to angiography-guided PCI (pooled odds ratio [OR] 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24-1.53, p<0.00001). The use of IVUS also resulted in a lower risk of all-cause mortality (pooled OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.41-1.83, p<0.00001) and reduced rates of stent thrombosis (pooled OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.82-2.86, p<0.00001) and TVR (pooled OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.21-1.42, p<0.00001). Conclusion: This meta-analysis provides evidence supporting the use of IVUS-guided PCI over angiography-guided PCI. IVUS-guided procedures were associated with reduced MACE rates, improved procedural success, decreased stent thrombosis, and superior angiographic outcomes. The findings suggest that incorporating IVUS into PCI procedures may lead to improved clinical outcomes and more optimal stent deployment. However, further studies are warranted to explore potential subgroup differences and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of IVUS-guided PCI.