Ramasamy et al. [36]
(n = 6919) |
Meta-analysis |
IVUS vs. OCT in detection of functionally significant intermediate non-left main coronary artery stenoses. |
IVUS and OCT have similar sensitivity in predicting haemodynamically significant lesions (IVUS-MLA: 0.747 vs. OCT-MLA 0.732, p = 0.519). OCT-MLA had a higher specificity (0.763 vs. 0.665, p < 0.001) and diagnostic accuracy in detecting flow-limiting stenoses than IVUS-MLA (AUC 0.810 vs. 0.754, p = 0.045).
|
Habara et al. [37]
(n = 70) |
Randomized controlled trial |
Evaluation of FD-OCT guidance for coronary stent implantation compared with IVUS guidance in patients with stable and unstable angina. |
Smaller stent expansion in the FD-OCT guided stent implantation in comparison to the IVUS guided group (minimum and mean stent area, focal and diffuse stent expansion were smaller in the FD-OCT group, p < 0.05). Frequency of significant residual reference segment stenosis at the proximal edge was higher in the FD-OCT group (p < 0.05). No significant differences in pre-baloon dilatation and stent size.
|
OPINION
Kubo et al. [38]
(n = 829) |
Randomized controlled trial |
Comparison of OFDI-guided PCI compared with IVUS-guided PCI in terms of clinical outcomes. |
12-month clinical outcome in patients undergoing OFDI-guided PCI was non-inferior to that of patients undergoing IVUS-guided PCI, defined by target vessel failure (composite of cardiac death, target-vessel related myocardial infarction, and ischaemia-driven target vessel revascularization). stent diameter was smaller in the OCT group (p = 0.005), with a tendency towards longer stents in OCT guided PCI (p = 0.06).
|
ILUMIEN III: OPTIMIZE PCI
Ali, Maehara et al. [19]
(n = 450) |
Randomized controlled trial |
Investigation of OCT and IVUS guided stent sizing in comparison with coronary angiography. |
OCT guidance was non-inferior to IVUS guidance (one-sided 97.5% lower CI—0.70 mm2; p = 0.001), but also not superior (p = 0.42). OCT guidance was also found not to be superior to angiography guidance (p = 0.12). At a 12-month follow up there was no statistical difference in clinical outcomes between IVUS and OCT. Acute stent malapposition was detected two times more frequently by OCT than IVUS (38.5% vs. 19.3%).
|
OPUS-CLASS
Kubo et al. [40]
(n = 100) |
Prospective study |
Investigation of reliability of frequency domain optical coherence tomography (FD-OCT) for coronary measurements compared with quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). |
The minimum lumen area measured byI VUS was significantly greater than that by FD-OCT (3.68 2.06 mm2 vs. 3.27 2.22 mm2, p < 0.001). Acute stent malapposition was detected two times more frequently by OCT than IVUS (39% vs. 14%).
|
Jones et al. [48]
(n = 87,166) |
Cohort study |
Determination of the effect on long-term survival of patients who underwent an OCT- or an IVUS-guided PCI. |
OCT-guided procedures were associated with greater procedural success rates and reduced in-hospital MACE rate. A significant difference in mortality was observed between patients who underwent OCT-guided PCI (7.7%) compared with patients who underwent either IVUS-guided (12.2%) or angiography-guided (15.7%; p < 0.0001) PCI Both intravascular modalities were predictors of survival, proving the superiority of clinical outcomes when the new imaging techniques were part of the diagnostic process
|
Saleh et al. [51]
(n = 1544) |
Meta-analysis |
Comparison of the clinical outcomes between OCT-guided and IVUS-guided low risk percutaneous coronary intervention. |
The analysis showed a similar risk of major cardiac adverse events (OCT 5.0% vs. IVUS 4.7%, p = 0.90), risk of all-cause death (OCT 2.7% vs. IVUS 1.7%, p = 0.44), myocardial infarction (OCT 1.5% vs. IVUS 1.3%, p = 0.76), stent thrombosis (OCT 0.3% vs. IVUS 0.4%, p = 0.66) and target lesion revascularization (OCT 2.2% vs. IVUS 2.6%, p = 0.59)
|
