Abstract:Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has become one of the most commonly performed interventional life-saving procedures worldwide. Intravascular Imaging (intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT)) have initially evolved to guide PCI compared with angiography. However, this technology is not universally employed in all PCI procedures, and there is ongoing controversy regarding its additional benefits to patient outcomes. We aim to estimate the efficacy and safety of imaging modalities during PCI, allowing pre-, per, and post-intervention assessment of coronary vascularization. Methods: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which were retrieved from PubMed, WOS, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and CENTRAL through September 2023. We used R, version 4.2.0. Effect sizes will be presented as odds ratios with accompanying 95% credible intervals. Prospero id: CRD42024507821. Results: Our study, encompassing 36 RCTs with a total of 17,572 patients, revelead that compared to conventional angiography, IVUS significantly reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (OR: 0.71 [95% CrI: 0.56 to 0.87]) but not OCT (OR: 0.91 [95% CrI: 0.62 to 1.39]), IVUS and OCT significantly reduced the risk of cardiac death (OR: 0.50 [95% CrI: 0.33 to 0.76]) and (OR: 0.55 [95% CrI: 0.31 to 0.98]), respectively, IVUS significantly reduced the risk of target vessel-related revascularization (OR: 0.60 [95% CrI: 0.48 to 0.75]) but not OCT (OR: 0.86 [95% CrI: 0.60 to 1.19]), IVUS and OCT significantly reduced the risk of stent thrombosis (OR: 0.50 [95% CrI: 0.28 to 0.92]) and (OR: 0.48 [95% CrI: 0.22 to 0.98]), respectively, IVUS significantly reduced the risk of re-stenosis (OR: 0.65 [95% CrI: 0.46 to 0.88]) but not OCT (OR: 0.55 [95% CrI: 0.15 to 1.99]), neither IVUS (OR: 0.97 [95% CrI: 0.71 to 1.38]) nor OCT (OR: 0.75 [95% CrI: 0.49 to 1.22]) were associated with statistically significant reductions in all-cause mortality, neither IVUS (OR: 0.70 [95% CrI: 0.45 to 1.32]) nor OCT (OR: 0.81 [95% CrI: 0.47 to 1.59]) were associated with statistically significant reductions in target vessel failure, neither IVUS (OR: 0.88 [95% CrI: 0.43 to 2.44]) nor OCT (OR: 0.81 [95% CrI: 0.37 to 2.04]) were associated with statistically significant reductions in target lesion failure, and neither IVUS (OR: 0.82 [95% CrI: 0.60 to 1.06]) nor OCT (OR: 0.84 [95% CrI: 0.59 to 1.19]) were associated with statistically significant reductions in myocardial infarction. Conclusion: Intravascular imaging-guided, including IVUS and OCT, improved the postinterventional outcomes of PCI, notably suggesting their advantage over traditional angiography with no significant difference between IVUS and OCT.

Intravascular Ultrasound during Endovascular Intervention for Peripheral Artery Disease, by Severity, Location, Device, and Procedure

Intravascular Ultrasound Use is Associated with Improved Patency in Lower Extremity Peripheral Arterial Interventions

The mid-term effect of intravascular ultrasound on endovascular interventions for lower extremity peripheral arterial disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract 15540: Comparative Outcomes of Femoropopliteal Intravascular Ultrasound Interventions: A Report From the XLPAD Registry

Impact of intravascular ultrasound‐guided endovascular therapy on periprocedural outcomes in patients with lower‐extremity artery disease

Cutting-edge Progress of Intravascular Ultrasound in Lower-Extremity Vascular Interventions.

Meta-analysis of Intravascular Ultrasound-guided versus Angiography-guided Endovascular Treatment in Lower Extremity Artery Disease

The Role of Intravascular Ultrasound in Limb Salvage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Endovascular therapy in intermittent claudication: Impact of IVUS guidance on treatment decisions

Intravascular Ultrasound Use in Peripheral Arterial and Deep Venous Interventions: Multidisciplinary Expert Opinion From SCAI/AVF/AVLS/SIR/SVM/SVS

The use of intravascular ultrasound during percutaneous coronary intervention does not reduce all cause in-hospital mortality but doubles the cost, with higher utilization in privately insured patients

Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ultrasound-Guided vs Non–Ultrasound-Guided Angio-Seal Vascular Hemosasis After Endovascular Treatment for Peripheral Artery Disease: An Observational Study

Procedural Characteristics of Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Their Clinical Implications

Intravascular Imaging for Peripheral Vascular Disease and Endovascular Intervention

Comparative Effectiveness of Intravascular Ultrasound versus Angiography in Abdominal and Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Intravascular imaging-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The Use and Impact of Cilostazol on Patients Undergoing Endovascular Peripheral Interventions

Long-term impact of intravascular ultrasound-guidance for percutaneous coronary intervention on unprotected left main. The IMPACTUS-LM, an observational, multicentric study

APPLICATION OF INTRAVASCULAR ULTRASOUND IN DIAGNOSIS AND THERAPY OF PERIPHERAL ARTERY STENOSIS

Intravascular Ultrasound versus Angiography Guided Drug Eluting Stent Implantation in Patients with Left Main Coronary Artery Disease – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis