Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Park DY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10908343 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Park Dae Yong DY An Seokyung S Jolly Neeraj N Attanasio Steve S Yadav Neha N Gutierrez Jorge A JA Nanna Michael G MG Rao Sunil V SV Vij Aviral A

Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions 20230722 3

<h4>Background</h4>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).<h4>Methods</h4>Frequentist and Bayesian network meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials were performed to compare ...[more]

PMID: 37483068

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe 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.ObjectiveThis 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.MethodsPubMed/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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsAlthough 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.

Project description:BackgroundResults 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.MethodsMajor 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.ResultsThe 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, 0.92-1.58]). 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.ConclusionsIVI-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.

Project description:ObjectiveTo 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.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to 31 August 2023.Study selectionRandomized 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 measuresRandom 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsCompared 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 registrationPROSPERO CRD42023433568.

Dataset Information

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

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets