Impact of Intracoronary Imaging-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Procedural Outcomes Among Complex Patient Groups

Intravascular Imaging-Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Despite the initial evidence supporting the utility of intravascular imaging to guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), adoption remains low. Recent new trial data have become available. An updated study-level meta-analysis comparing intravascular imaging to angiography to guide PCI was performed. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of intravascular imaging-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A random-effects meta-analysis was performed on the basis of the intention-to-treat principle. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events, cardiac death, and all-cause death. Mixed-effects meta-regression was performed to investigate the impact of complex PCI on the primary outcomes. A total of 16 trials with 7814 patients were included. The weighted mean follow-up duration was 28.8 months. Intravascular imaging led to a lower risk of major adverse cardiac events (relative risk [RR], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.55-0.82]; P<0.001), cardiac death (RR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.34-0.71]; P<0.001), stent thrombosis (RR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.40-0.99]; P=0.046), target-lesion revascularization (RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.49-0.91]; P=0.01), and target-vessel revascularization (RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.45-0.80]; P<0.001). In complex lesion subsets, the point estimate for imaging-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI for all-cause death was a RR of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.55-1.02; P=0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing PCI, intravascular imaging is associated with reductions in major adverse cardiac events, cardiac death, stent thrombosis, target-lesion revascularization, and target-vessel revascularization. The magnitude of benefit is large and consistent across all included studies. There may also be benefits in all-cause death, particularly in complex lesion subsets. These results support the use of intravascular imaging as standard of care and updates of clinical guidelines.

Intracoronary imaging guided percutaneous coronary intervention outcomes among individuals with cardiogenic shock

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist around the utility of intracoronary imaging (ICI) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and cardiogenic shock (CS), who are inherently at a high risk of stent thrombosis (ST).

METHODS

All PCI procedures for ACS patients with CS in England and Wales between 2014 and 2020 were retrospectively analysed, stratified into two groups: ICI and angiography-guided groups. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to examine odds ratios (OR) of in-hospital outcomes, including major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; composite of all-cause mortality, acute stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA), and reinfarction) and major bleeding, in the ICI-guided group compared with angiography-guided PCI.

RESULTS

Of 15,738 PCI procedures, 1240(7.9%) were ICI-guided. The rate of ICI use amongst those with CS more than doubled from 2014 (5.7%) to 2020 (13.3%). The ICI-guided group were predominantly younger, males, with a higher proportion of non-ST-elevation ACS and ST. MACCE was significantly lower in the ICI-guided group compared with the angiography-guided group (crude: 29.8% vs. 38.2%, adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.65 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.76), driven by lower all-cause mortality (28.6% vs. 37.0%, OR 0.65 95% CI 0.55-0.75). There were no differences in other secondary outcomes between groups.

CONCLUSION

ICI use among CS patients has more than doubled over 6 years but remains significantly under-utilized, with less than 1-in-6 patients in receipt of ICI-guided PCI by 2020. ICI-guided PCI is associated with prognostic benefits in CS patients and should be more frequently utilized to increase their long-term survival.

Hospital-Level Variability in Use of Intracoronary Imaging for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States

Background

Intracoronary (IC) imaging for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with better patient outcomes and carries a class IIA guideline recommendation, but it remains rarely used. We sought to characterize hospital-level variability in IC imaging for PCI in the United States and to identify factors that may explain this variability.

Methods

Patients who underwent PCI, with or without IC imaging, in the Nationwide Readmissions Database (2016-2020) were included. A regression model with a random effect for site was used to generate the median odds ratio (MOR) of IC imaging use for a patient at one site vs another, sequentially adjusting for procedural, patient, and hospital factors to examine the extent to which different factors account for this variability.

Results

The analytic cohort included 1,328,517 PCI procedures (patient mean age 65.8 years, 32.4% female, IC imaging used in 9.2%) at 1068 hospitals. The median hospital use of IC imaging increased from 2.7% (IQR, 0.6-7.7) in 2016 to 6.3% (IQR, 1.7-17.8) in 2020. In 2020, the MOR for IC imaging during PCI was 4.6 (IQR, 4.3-5.0), indicating a >4-fold difference in the odds of a patient undergoing IC imaging with PCI at one random hospital vs another. Adjusting for procedure, patient, and hospital factors did not meaningfully alter the MOR.

Conclusion

The average US hospital uses IC imaging for <1 in 15 PCI procedures, with marked variability across hospitals. Strategies to increase and standardize the use of IC imaging are needed to improve the quality of PCI in the United States.