Clinical Outcomes Following Hemodynamic Parameter or Intravascular Imaging-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Era of Drug-Eluting Stents: An Updated Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of 28 Randomized Trials and 11,860 Patients

Clinical impact of OCT-derived suboptimal stent implantation parameters and definitions

AIMS

Despite growing evidence supporting the clinical utility of optical coherence tomography (OCT) guidance during percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs), there is no common agreement as to the optimal stent implantation parameters that enhance clinical outcome.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We retrospectively examined the predictive accuracy of suboptimal stent implantation definitions proposed from the CLI-OPCI II, ILUMIEN-IV OPTIMAL PCI, and FORZA studies for the long-term risk of device-oriented cardiovascular events (DoCE) in the population of large all-comers CLI-OPCI project. A total of 1020 patients undergoing OCT-guided drug-eluting stent implantation in the CLI-OPCI registry with a median follow-up of 809 (quartiles 414-1376) days constituted the study population. According to CLI-OPCI II, ILUMIEN-IV OPTIMAL PCI, and FORZA criteria, the incidence of suboptimal stent implantation was 31.8%, 58.1%, and 57.8%, respectively. By multivariable Cox analysis, suboptimal stent implantation criteria from the CLI-OPCI II [hazard ratio 2.75 (95% confidence interval 1.88-4.02), P < 0.001] and ILUMIEN-IV OPTIMAL PCI [1.79 (1.18-2.71), P = 0.006] studies, but not FORZA trial [1.11 (0.75-1.63), P = 0.597], were predictive of DoCE. At long-term follow-up, stent edge disease with minimum lumen area <4.5 mm2 [8.17 (5.32-12.53), P < 0.001], stent edge dissection [2.38 (1.33-4.27), P = 0.004], and minimum stent area <4.5 mm2 [1.68 (1.13-2.51), P = 0.011] were the main OCT predictors of DoCE.

CONCLUSION

The clinical utility of OCT-guided PCI might depend on the metrics adopted to define suboptimal stent implantation. Uncovered disease at the stent border, stent edge dissection, and minimum stent area <4.5 mm2 were the strongest OCT associates of stent failure.

Prognostic value of optical flow ratio for cardiovascular outcomes in patients after percutaneous coronary stent implantation

Background

The relationship between the optical flow ratio (OFR) and clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) after percutaneous coronary stent implantation (PCI) remains unknown.

Objective

To examine the correlation between post-PCI OFR and clinical outcomes in patients with CAD following PCI.

Methods

Patients who underwent optical coherence tomography (OCT) guided PCI at Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital were retrospectively and continuously enrolled. Clinical data, post-PCI OCT characteristics, and OFR measurements were collected and analyzed to identify predictors of target vessel failure (TVF) after PCI.

Results

Among 354 enrolled patients, 26 suffered TVF during a median follow-up of 484 (IQR: 400-774) days. Post-PCI OFR was significantly lower in the TVF group than in the non-TVF group (0.89 vs. 0.93; P = 0.001). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, post-PCI OFR (HR per 0.1 increase: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.41-0.89; P = 0.011), large stent edge dissection (HR: 3.85; 95% CI: 1.51-9.84; P = 0.005) and thin-cap fibroatheroma (TCFA) (HR: 2.95; 95% CI: 1.19-7.35; P = 0.020) in the non-stented segment were independently associated with TVF. In addition, the inclusion of post-PCI OFR to baseline characteristics and post-PCI OCT findings improved the predictive power of the model to distinguish subsequent TVF after PCI (0.838 vs. 0.796; P = 0.028).

Conclusion

The post-PCI OFR serves as an independent determinant of risk for TVF in individuals with CAD after PCI. The inclusion of post-PCI OFR assessments, alongside baseline characteristics and post-PCI OCT findings, substantially enhances the capacity to differentiate the subsequent manifestation of TVF in CAD patients following PCI.

Fractional flow reserve use in coronary artery revascularization: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is recommended in revascularization guidelines for intermediate lesions. However, recent studies comparing FFR-guided PCI with non-physiology-guided revascularization have reported conflicting results. PubMed and Embase were searched for studies comparing FFR-guided PCI with non-physiology-guided revascularization strategies (angiography-guided, intracoronary imaging-guided, coronary artery bypass grafting). Data were pooled by meta-analysis using random-effects model. 26 studies enrolling 78,897 patients were included. FFR-guided PCI as compared to non-physiology-guided coronary revascularization had lower risk of all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.79 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.99, I² = 53%) and myocardial infarction (MI) (OR 0.74 95% CI 0.59-0.93, I² = 44.7%). However, no differences between groups were found in terms of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) (OR 0.86 95% CI 0.72-1.03, I² = 72.3%) and repeat revascularization (OR 1 95% CI 0.82-1.20, I² = 43.2%). Among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), FFR-guided PCI as compared to non-physiology-guided revascularization was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and MI.

Drug-Coated Balloon in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

According to the latest coronary interventional guidelines, a drug-eluting stent is the recommended reperfusion therapy in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). However, deficiencies and defects, such as in-stent restenosis (ISR), incomplete stent apposition, stent thrombosis, reinfarction after stent implantation, long-term dual antiplatelet drug use, and adverse reactions of metal implants, plague clinicians and patients. Drug-coated balloon (DCB), which delivers antiproliferative agents into the vessel wall without stent implantation and leaves no implants behind after the procedure, is a novel option for percutaneous coronary intervention and has proven to be a promising strategy in cases of ISR, small vessel coronary artery disease, and bifurcation lesions. However, most of the available experience has been gained in elective percutaneous coronary intervention, and experience in pPCI is lacking. The current evidence for the use of DCB-only in pPCI was discussed and analyzed in this review.