Comparison of Intravascular Imaging, Functional, or Angiographically Guided Coronary Intervention

In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), it remains unclear whether intravascular imaging guidance or functional guidance is the best strategy to optimize outcomes and if the results are different in patients with vs without acute coronary syndromes (ACS). The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes with imaging-guided PCI or functionally guided PCI when compared with conventional angiography-guided PCI. We searched PUBMED and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials investigating outcomes with intravascular imaging-guided, functionally guided, or angiography-guided PCI. The primary outcome from this network meta-analysis was trial-defined major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)—a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization (TLR). PCI strategies were ranked (best to worst) using P scores. Our search identified 32 eligible randomized controlled trials and included a total of 22,684 patients. Compared with angiography-guided PCI, intravascular imaging-guided PCI was associated with reduced risk of MACE (relative risk [RR]: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.62-0.82), cardiovascular death (RR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.42-0.75), MI (RR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.66-0.99), stent thrombosis (RR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.31-0.73), and TLR (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.57-0.99). Similarly, when compared with angiography-guided PCI, functionally guided PCI was associated with reduced risk of MACE and MI. Intravascular imaging-guided PCI ranked first for the outcomes of MACE, cardiovascular death, stent thrombosis, and TLR. The results were consistent in the ACS and non-ACS cohorts. Angiography-guided PCI had consistently worse outcomes compared with intravascular imaging-guided and functionally guided PCI. Intravascular imaging-guided PCI was the best strategy to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.