Abstract
Intravascular imaging (IVI) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been shown to improve clinical outcomes. However, data is limited in complex PCI and the adoption remains low. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of all available randomized controlled trials comparing IVI with conventional angiography in patients who underwent complex PCI. The primary outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiovascular events, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization. Random-effects model was used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 10 randomized controlled trials comprising 6,368 patients with 3,452 in the IVI group and 2,916 in the angiography group were included. The mean duration of follow up was 2 years, mean age was 65 years and 73% of patients were men. As compared with PCI with routine angiography, the IVI-guided PCI group had significantly lower risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.75, p <0.00001), stent thrombosis (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.92, p = 0.02), cardiovascular deaths (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.68, p = 0.0001), target lesion revascularization (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.78, p <0.0001) and target vessel revascularization (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.80, p = 0.0003). All-cause deaths and MI were similar in the 2 groups. In conclusion, among patients who underwent complex PCI, IVI reduces adverse events, importantly stent thrombosis and repeat revascularizations, compared with angiography alone guided PCI.