Comparison of clinical outcomes between intravascular optical coherence tomography-guided and angiography-guided stent implantation: A meta-analysis of randomized control trials and systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review was designed to evaluate the overall efficacy of optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided implantation versus angiography-guided for percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS

The following electronic databases, such as CENTRAL, PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE were searched for systematic reviews to investigate OCT-guided and angiography-guided implantation. We measured the following 7 parameters in each patient: stent thrombosis, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), all-cause death.

RESULTS

In all, 11 studies (6 RCTs and 5 observational studies) involving 4026 subjects were included, with 1903 receiving intravascular ultrasound-guided drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation and 2123 using angiography-guided DES implantation. With regard to MACE, MT, TLR, TVR, stent thrombosis and all-cause death, the group of OCT-guided implantation had no significant statistical association with remarkably improved clinical outcomes. However, its effect on cardiovascular death has a significant statistical difference in angiography-guided implantation group.

CONCLUSION

In the present pool analysis, OCT-guided DES implantation showed a tendency toward improved clinical outcomes compared to angiography-guided implantation. More eligible randomized clinical trials are warranted to verify the findings and to determine the beneficial effect of OCT-guidance for patients.