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

Abstract

BackgroundDespite 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. MethodsWe 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). ResultsA 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. ConclusionsCompared 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.