Abstract:Although multiple randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have shown that intravascular imaging (IVI)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with angiography-guided PCI, its benefits specifically in calcified coronary lesions is unclear due to the small number of patients included in individual trials. We performed a meta-analysis of RCTs to investigate benefits of IVI-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI in heavily calcified coronary lesions. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel or target-lesion myocardial infarction, and target-vessel or target lesion revascularization. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated by using a random-effects meta-analysis based on the restricted maximum likelihood method. A search PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from their inception to January 2024 identified 4 trials that randomized 1319 patients with angiographically moderate or severe or severe coronary calcification to IVI-guided ( n = 702) vs. angiography-guided PCI ( n = 617). IVI-guided PCI resulted in a significantly lower odds of MACE (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40–0.80) compared with angiography-guided PCI at a weighted median follow-up duration of 27.3 months. There was no evidence of heterogeneity among the studies ( I 2 = 0.0%), and included trials were judged to be low risk of bias. Compared with angiography-guided PCI, IVI-guided PCI was associated with a significantly lower MACE in angiographically heavily calcified coronary lesions.

Intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention for heavily calcified coronary lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis