Usefulness of Frequency Domain Optical Coherence Tomography Compared with Intravascular Ultrasound As a Guidance for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Objectives: To compare outcomes and rates of optimal stent placement between optical coherence tomography (OCT) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
Background: Unlike IVUS-guided PCI, rates of clinical outcomes and optimal stent placement have not been well characterized for OCT-guided PCI.
Methods: The study enrolled 290 patients who underwent implantation of a second generation drug eluting stent under OCT (122 patients) or IVUS (168 patients) guidance. The two groups were compared after adjusting for baseline differences using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) (114 patients in each group). Optimal stent placement was defined as achieving an adequate lumen (optimal minimum stent area [MSA > 4.85 mm(2) for OCT, >5 mm(2) for IVUS] or a final MSA ≥ 90% of the distal reference lumen area, without edge dissection, incomplete stent apposition, or tissue prolapse), or otherwise performing additional interventions to address suboptimal post-stenting OCT or IVUS findings. The primary endpoint was one-year cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization). Definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) rates were evaluated.
Results: In adjusted comparisons between OCT and IVUS groups, there was no significant difference in rates of MACE (3.5% vs. 3.5%, P = 1.000) and ST (0% vs. 0.9%, P = 1.000) at 1 year, optimal stent placement (89.5% vs. 92.1%, P = 0.492), and further intervention (7.9% vs.13.2%, P = 0.234), despite OCT significantly more frequently detecting tissue prolapse (97.4% vs. 47.4%, P < 0.001), and numerically more edge dissection (10.5% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.078) or incomplete stent apposition (48.2% vs. 36.8%, P = 0.082).
Conclusions: OCT guidance showed comparable results to IVUS in mid-term clinical outcomes, suggesting that OCT can be an alternative tool for stent placement optimization.
Shariff M, Kumar A, Kansara T, Majmundar M, Doshi R, Stulak J J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2024; 1(6):100507.
PMID: 39132355 PMC: 11307961. DOI: 10.1016/j.jscai.2022.100507.
Optimization of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using Optical Coherence Tomography.
Lee C, Hur S Korean Circ J. 2019; 49(9):771-793.
PMID: 31456372 PMC: 6713825. DOI: 10.4070/kcj.2019.0198.
Jiang Y, He L, Gong R, Lei G, Wu Y Medicine (Baltimore). 2019; 98(6):e14300.
PMID: 30732146 PMC: 6380786. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014300.
The Current State of Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
Avula H, Rassi A Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2018; 20(1):3.
PMID: 29344756 DOI: 10.1007/s11883-018-0705-2.
Kubo T, Shinke T, Okamura T, Hibi K, Nakazawa G, Morino Y Eur Heart J. 2017; 38(42):3139-3147.
PMID: 29121226 PMC: 5837511. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx351.