Intravascular Imaging–Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Reconstructed Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of IVUS- and OCT-Guided Strategies

Clicks: 12
ID: 328336
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #57 of 80 articles by views in European Heart Journal Open

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Background and Aims Uncertainty persists regarding the comparative efficacy of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We synthesized randomized evidence using reconstructed individual participant data (IPD) and compared the two modalities indirectly. Methods MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched through March 31, 2026. IPD were reconstructed from published Kaplan–Meier curves. Primary analyses used one-stage stratified Cox models; secondary analyses included random-effects and Bayesian hierarchical models. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Results Twenty-three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling 21,176 patients were included (16 IVUS, n = 15,209; 7 OCT, n = 5,967). IVUS-guided PCI reduced MACE (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67–0.83; P < .001), target vessel revascularization (TVR; HR 0.70; 0.60–0.82), and stent thrombosis (ST; HR 0.54; 0.37–0.78). OCT-guided PCI reduced MACE (HR 0.75; 0.63–0.91; P = .003), cardiac death (HR 0.48; 0.27–0.83), myocardial infarction (HR 0.79; 0.63–0.99), ST (HR 0.40; 0.22–0.74), and TVR (HR 0.74; 0.57–0.97). Bayesian posterior probabilities of benefit exceeded 82% for all IVUS and 94% for all OCT endpoints. Indirect comparison detected no significant between-modality difference. Metaregression of IVUS trials revealed heterogeneity by geographic region (P < .001) and attenuation of benefit over time (β=+0.034/year; P = .004); OCT analyses were nonsignificant. Conclusions Both IVUS and OCT reduced major adverse cardiovascular events, revascularization, and stent thrombosis compared with angiography-guided PCI. These findings support intravascular imaging as a routine adjunct to PCI in the populations studied.
Reference Key
openalex_W7212166166 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Aref A. Bin Abdulhak, Mamas A Mamas, Ziad A. Ali, Roxana Mehran, Wayne Batchelor, Razan Bahurmuz, Ghulam Mujtaba Ghumman, A. Mohsen, Khawlah A Hadi, Anas Noman, Marwan Saad, Zaher Fanari, Hazim Rahbi, Musa Sharkawi, Poghni Peri-Okonny, Raveen Chawla, Mirvat Alasnag
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal European Heart Journal Open
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/ehjopen/oeag136
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjopen/oeag136
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.