Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online 2024-10
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.
RoyPSteinbergDHSushinskySJ, et al.The potential clinical utility of intravascular ultrasound guidance in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents. Eur Heart J. 2008;29:1851-1857.
2.
AntonsenLThayssenPMaeharaA, et al.Optical coherence tomography guided percutaneous coronary intervention with nobori stent implantation in patients with non–st-segment–elevation myocardial infarction (OCTACS) trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:e002446.
3.
AliZAMaeharaAGénéreuxP, et al.Optical coherence tomography compared with intravascular ultrasound and with angiography to guide coronary stent implantation (ILUMIEN III: OPTIMIZE PCI): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;388:2618-2628.
4.
ChamiéDCostaJRDamianiLP, et al.Optical coherence tomography versus intravascular ultrasound and angiography to guide percutaneous coronary interventions. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14:e009452.
5.
JiangNWangBChenADongFYuB. Operative versus nonoperative treatment for acute Achilles tendon rupture: a meta-analysis based on current evidence. Int Orthop. 2012;36:765-773.
6.
MargulisAVPladevallMRiera-GuardiaN, et al.Quality assessment of observational studies in a drug-safety systematic review, comparison of two tools: the newcastle–ottawa scale and the RTI item bank. Clin Epidemiol. 2014;6:359-368.
7.
HigginsJPTTJChandlerJCumpstonMLiTPageMJWelchVA. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3. 2022. Available from: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
8.
JakabčinJŠpačekRBystroňM, et al.Long-term health outcome and mortality evaluation after invasive coronary treatment using drug eluting stents with or without the IVUS guidance. Randomized control trial. HOME DES IVUS. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;75:578-583.
9.
ChieffoALatibACaussinC, et al.A prospective, randomized trial of intravascular-ultrasound guided compared to angiography guided stent implantation in complex coronary lesions: The AVIO trial. Am Heart J. 2013;165:65-72.
10.
KimJ-SKangT-SMintz GaryS, et al.Randomized comparison of clinical outcomes between intravascular ultrasound and angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation for long coronary artery stenoses. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:369-376.
11.
KimB-KShinD-HHongM-K, et al.Clinical impact of intravascular ultrasound–guided chronic total occlusion intervention with zotarolimus-eluting versus biolimus-eluting stent implantation. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:e002592.
12.
TanQWangQLiuDZhangSZhangYLiY. Intravascular ultrasound-guided unprotected left main coronary artery stenting in the elderly. Saudi Med J. 2015;36:549+.
13.
KuboTShinkeTOkamuraT, et al.Optical frequency domain imaging vs. intravascular ultrasound in percutaneous coronary intervention (OPINION trial): one-year angiographic and clinical results. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:3139-3147.
14.
MeneveauNSouteyrandGMotreffP, et al.Optical coherence tomography to optimize results of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with non–st-elevation acute coronary syndrome. Circulation. 2016;134:906-917.
15.
KalaPCervinkaPJaklM, et al.OCT guidance during stent implantation in primary PCI: A randomized multicenter study with nine months of optical coherence tomography follow-up. Int J Cardiol. 2018;250:98-103.
16.
LiuXMYangZMLiuXK, et al.Intravascular ultrasound-guided drug-eluting stent implantation for patients with unprotected left main coronary artery lesions: A single-center randomized trial. Anatol J Cardiol. 2019;21:83-90.
17.
HongS-JMintz GarySAhnC-M, et al.Effect of intravascular ultrasound–guided drug-eluting stent implantation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:62-71.
18.
ZhangJGaoXKanJ, et al.Intravascular ultrasound versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:3126-3137.
19.
Jones DanielARathod KrishnarajSKogantiS, et al.Angiography alone versus angiography plus optical coherence tomography to guide percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:1313-1321.
20.
AbdelmonaemMAbushoukARedaAArafaSAboul- EneinHBendaryA. IVUS-guided versus OCT-guided PCI among patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome. Egypt Heart J. 2023;75:49-57.
21.
KhalifaAKMKuboTShimamuraK, et al.Impact of optical coherence tomography imaging on decision-making during percutaneous coronary intervention in patients presented with acute coronary syndromes. Circ J. 2021;85:1781-1788.
22.
RussoRJSilvaPDTeirsteinPS, et al.A randomized controlled trial of angiography versus intravascular ultrasound-directed bare-metal coronary stent placement (The AVID Trial). Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:113-123.
23.
ChenS-LYeFZhangJ-J, et al.Intravascular ultrasound-guided systematic two-stent techniques for coronary bifurcation lesions and reduced late stent thrombosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;81:456-463.
24.
Choi KiHSong YoungBLee JooM, et al.Impact of intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention on long-term clinical outcomes in patients undergoing complex procedures. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:607-620.
25.
de la Torre Hernandez JoseMBaz Alonso JoséAGómez Hospital JoanA, et al.Clinical impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance in drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary disease. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:244-254.
26.
GilRJPawłowskiTDudekD, et al.Comparison of angiographically guided direct stenting technique with direct stenting and optimal balloon angioplasty guided with intravascular ultrasound. The multicenter, randomized trial results. Am Heart J. 2007;154:669-675.
27.
ParkKWKangS-HYangH-M, et al.Impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance in routine percutaneous coronary intervention for conventional lesions: data from the EXCELLENT trial. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167:721-726.
28.
GaoX-FKanJZhangY-J, et al.Comparison of one-year clinical outcomes between intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided implantation of drug-eluting stents for left main lesions: a single-center analysis of a 1,016-patient cohort. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;8:1299-1309.
29.
HongS-JKimB-KShinD-H, et al.Usefulness of intravascular ultrasound guidance in percutaneous coronary intervention with second-generation drug-eluting stents for chronic total occlusions (from the multicenter korean-chronic total occlusion registry). Am J Cardiol. 2014;114:534-540.
30.
Claessen BimmerEMehranRMintz GaryS, et al.Impact of intravascular ultrasound imaging on early and late clinical outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:974-981.
31.
MudraHdi MarioCde JaegereP, et al.Randomized comparison of coronary stent implantation under ultrasound or angiographic guidance to reduce stent restenosis (OPTICUS study). Circulation. 2001;104:1343-1349.
32.
WakabayashiKLindsayJLaynez-CarniceroANA, et al.Utility of intravascular ultrasound guidance in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for type C lesions. J Interv Cardiol. 2012;25:452-459.
33.
WitzenbichlerBMaeharaAWeiszG, et al.Relationship between intravascular ultrasound guidance and clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stents. Circulation. 2014;129:463-470.
34.
PratiFDi VitoLBiondi-ZoccaiG, et al.Angiography alone versus angiography plus optical coherence tomography to guide decision-making during percutaneous coronary intervention: the centro per la lotta contro l'infarto-optimisation of percutaneous coronary intervention (CLI-OPCI) study. EuroIntervention. 2012;8:823-829.
35.
KimI-CYoonH-JShinE-S, et al.Usefulness of frequency domain optical coherence tomography compared with intravascular ultrasound as a guidance for percutaneous coronary intervention. J Interv Cardiol. 2016;29:216-224.
36.
ShethTNKajanderOALaviS, et al.Optical coherence tomography–guided percutaneous coronary intervention in st-segment–elevation myocardial infarction. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:e003414.
37.
MuramatsuTOzakiYNanasatoM, et al.Comparison between optical frequency domain imaging and intravascular ultrasound for percutaneous coronary intervention guidance in biolimus a9-eluting stent implantation. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:e009314.
38.
IannacconeMD’AscenzoFFrangiehAH, et al.Impact of an optical coherence tomography guided approach in acute coronary syndromes: A propensity matched analysis from the international FORMIDABLE-CARDIOGROUP IV and USZ registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;90:E46-E52.
39.
CorteseBde la Torre HernandezJMLanochaM, et al.Optical coherence tomography, intravascular ultrasound or angiography guidance for distal left main coronary stenting. The ROCK cohort II study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;99:664-673.
40.
LeeSYChoiKHSongYB, et al.Use of intravascular ultrasound and long-term cardiac death or myocardial infarction in patients receiving current generation drug-eluting stents. Sci Rep. 2022;12:8237.
41.
KimYBaeSJohnsonTW, et al.Role of intravascular ultrasound‐guided percutaneous coronary intervention in optimizing outcomes in acute myocardial infarction. J Am Heart Assoc. 2022;11:e023481.
42.
HannanELZhongYReddyP, et al.Percutaneous coronary intervention with and without intravascular ultrasound for patients with complex lesions: utilization, mortality, and target vessel revascularization. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;15:e011687.
43.
OemrawsinghPVMintzGSSchalijMJZwindermanAHJukemaJWWallEEvd. Intravascular ultrasound guidance improves angiographic and clinical outcome of stent implantation for long coronary artery stenoses. Circulation. 2003;107:62-67.
44.
AhnSGYoonJSungJK, et al.Intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention improves the clinical outcome in patients undergoing multiple overlapping drug-eluting stents implantation. Kcj. 2013;43:231-238.
45.
KalogeropoulosASAlsanjariODaviesJR, et al.Impact of intravascular ultrasound on chronic total occlusion percutaneous revascularization. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2021;33:32-40.
46.
VemmouEKhatriJDoingAH, et al.Impact of intravascular ultrasound utilization for stent optimization on 1-year outcomes after chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention. J Invasive Cardiol. 2020;32:392-399.
47.
TindaleAPanoulasV. Real-world intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) use in percutaneous intervention-naïve patients is determined predominantly by operator, patient, and lesion characteristics. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:974161.
48.
FayedHElgendyKBarradaIR. Clinical outcome of intravascular ultrasound guided percutaneous coronary intervention of isolated ostial left anterior descending artery lesions. Europ Jour Hea Scie. 2023;8:1-10.
49.
Yuji MatsuwakiTMOtaHYoshinagaMIshikawaM. Comparison between optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for st-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Research Square. 2022; Preprint. DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1934868/v1
50.
NakatsumaKShiomiHMorimotoT, et al.Intravascular ultrasound guidance vs. angiographic guidance in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for st-segment elevation myocardial infarction – long-term clinical outcomes from the credo-kyoto ami registry. Circ J. 2016;80:477-484.
51.
Ya’qoubLGadMSaadAMElgendyIYMahmoudAN. National trends of utilization and readmission rates with intravascular ultrasound use for ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;98:1-9.
52.
YounYJYoonJLeeJ-W, et al.Intravascular ultrasound-guided primary percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Clin Cardiol. 2011;34:706-713.
53.
OkuraHSaitoYSoedaT, et al.Frequency and prognostic impact of intravascular imaging-guided urgent percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction: Results from J-MINUET. Heart Ves. 2019;34:564-571.
54.
KimJ-SHongM-KKoY-G, et al.Impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance on long-term clinical outcomes in patients treated with drug-eluting stent for bifurcation lesions: Data from a Korean multicenter bifurcation registry. Am Heart J. 2011;161:180-187.
55.
HurS-HKangS-JKimY-H, et al.Impact of intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention on long-term clinical outcomes in a real world population. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;81:407-416.
56.
SaylikFCinarTSelcukMCicekVHayirogluMIOrhanAL. Comparison of outcomes between single long stent and overlapping stents: a meta-analysis of the literature. Herz. 2023. DOI: 10.1007/s00059-022-05152-4
57.
MaeharaAMatsumuraMAliZAMintzGSStoneGW. IVUS-guided versus OCT-guided coronary stent implantation: A critical appraisal. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10:1487-1503.
58.
TearneyGJRegarEAkasakaT, et al.Consensus standards for acquisition, measurement, and reporting of intravascular optical coherence tomography studies: A report from the international working group for intravascular optical coherence tomography standardization and validation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1058-1072.
59.
ShariffMKumarAKansaraT, et al.Network meta-analysis of trials comparing intravascular ultrasound, optical coherence tomography, and angiography-guided technique for drug-eluting stent implantation. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2022;1:100507.
60.
HabaraMNasuKTerashimaM, et al.Impact of frequency-domain optical coherence tomography guidance for optimal coronary stent implantation in comparison with intravascular ultrasound guidance. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5:193-201.
61.
OtakeHKuboTTakahashiH, et al.Optical frequency domain imaging versus intravascular ultrasound in percutaneous coronary intervention (OPINION Trial): Results from the OPINION imaging study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;11:111-123.
62.
KuboTAkasakaTShiteJ, et al.OCT compared with IVUS in a coronary lesion assessment: the OPUS-CLASS study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6:1095-1104.
63.
BavishiCSardarPChatterjeeS, et al.Intravascular ultrasound-guided vs angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation in complex coronary lesions: Meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am Heart J. 2017;185:26-34.
64.
MalikAHYandrapalliSAronowWSPanzaJACooperHA. Intravascular ultrasound-guided stent implantation reduces cardiovascular mortality - updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Cardiol. 2020;299:100-105.
65.
VallabhajosyulaSEl HajjSCBellMR, et al.Intravascular ultrasound, optical coherence tomography, and fractional flow reserve use in acute myocardial infarction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;96:E59-E66.
66.
ZhouJLiewDDuffySJ, et al.Intravascular ultrasound versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation: a health economic analysis. Circ Cardiov Qual Outcom. 2021;14:e006789.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
