Optical coherence tomography-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is standard of care in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) suitable for interventional revascularization. Intracoronary imaging by optical coherence tomography (OCT) expanded treatment approaches adding diagnostic information and contributing to stent optimization.

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of OCT-guided vs. angiography-guided PCI in treatment of ACS.

METHODS

A structured literature search was performed. All controlled trials evaluating OCT-guided vs. angiography-guided PCI in patients with ACS were eligible. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

RESULTS

Eight studies enrolling 2612 patients with ACS were eligible. 1263 patients underwent OCT-guided and 1,349 patients angiography-guided PCI. OCT guidance was associated with a 30% lower likelihood of MACE (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53-0.93, p = 0.01, I = 1%). OCT-guided PCI was also associated with significantly decreased cardiac mortality (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.96, p = 0.04, I = 0%). There was no detectable difference in all-cause mortality (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.51-2.31, p = 0.83, I = 0). Patients in OCT-guided group less frequently required target lesion revascularization (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07-0.95, p = 0.04, I = 0%). Analysis of myocardial infarction did not result in significant treatment differences. In subgroup or sensitivity analysis the observed advantages of OCT-guided PCI were not replicable.

CONCLUSION

The evidence suggests that PCI guidance with OCT in ACS decreases MACE, cardiac death and target lesion revascularization compared to angiography. On individual study level, in subgroup or sensitivity analyses these advantages were not thoroughly replicable.