Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Sreenivasan J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10926835 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Sreenivasan Jayakumar J Reddy Rohin K RK Jamil Yasser Y Malik Aaqib A Chamie Daniel D Howard James P JP Nanna Michael G MG Mintz Gary S GS Maehara Akiko A Ali Ziad A ZA Moses Jeffrey W JW Chen Shao-Liang SL Chieffo Alaide A Colombo Antonio A Leon Martin B MB Lansky Alexandra J AJ Ahmad Yousif Y

Journal of the American Heart Association 20240112 2

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods and results</h4>A random-effects meta- ...[more]

PMID: 38214263

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundPercutaneous 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.MethodsA 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 idCRD42024507821.ResultsOur 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.ConclusionIntravascular 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.

Project description:ImportanceData are limited regarding the effects of intravascular imaging guidance during complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes.ObjectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of intravascular imaging-guided vs angiography-guided complex PCI in patients with or without diabetes.Design, setting, and participantsThis prespecified secondary analysis of a subgroup of patients in RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI (Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance Versus Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention), an investigator-initiated, open-label multicenter trial, analyzed enrolled patients who underwent complex PCI at 20 sites in Korea from May 2018 through May 2021. Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to undergo either the intravascular imaging-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. Data analyses were performed from June 2023 to April 2024.InterventionsPercutaneous coronary intervention was performed either under the guidance of intravascular imaging or angiography alone.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was target vessel failure (TVF), defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization.ResultsAmong the 1639 patients included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 65.6 [10.2] years; 1300 males [79.3%]), 617 (37.6%) had diabetes. The incidence of TVF was significantly higher in patients with diabetes than patients without diabetes (hazard ratio [HR], 1.86; 95% CI, 1.33-2.60; P < .001). Among patients without diabetes, the intravascular imaging-guided PCI group had a significantly lower incidence of TVF compared with the angiography-guided PCI group (4.7% vs 12.2%; HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.25-0.67]; P < .001). Conversely, in patients with diabetes, the risk of TVF was not significantly different between the 2 groups (12.9% vs 12.3%; HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.60-1.57]; P = .90). There was a significant interaction between the use of intravascular imaging and diabetes for the risk of TVF (P for interaction = .02). Among patients with diabetes, only those with good glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c level ≤7.5%) and who achieved stent optimization by intravascular imaging showed a lower risk of future ischemic events (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12-0.82; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceIn this secondary analysis of a subgroup of patients in the RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI trial, intravascular imaging guidance reduced the risk of TVF compared with angiography guidance in patients without diabetes (but not in patients with diabetes) during complex PCI. In patients with diabetes undergoing complex PCI, attention should be paid to stent optimization using intravascular imaging and glycemic control to improve outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03381872.

Dataset Information

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

Background

Methods and results

Conclusions

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets