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-guided percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with unprotected left main coronary artery lesions

Long-term Outcome Comparison of Ostial/shaft Lesions in Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Treated by PCI or CABG

Application of intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention therapy on unprotected left main coronary artery disease

Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation for Patients with Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Lesions: A Single-Center Randomized Trial

Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance Improves the Long-term Prognosis in Patients with Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

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

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

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

Intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in left main coronary bifurcation lesions: a review

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

Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Intravascular Ultrasound Guided Intervention in Calcified Coronary Lesions Showed Good Clinical Outcomes during One Year Follow-Up

GW28-e1174 Percutaneous Coronary Intervention to Left Anterior Descending Artery Guided by Intravascular Ultrasound

Comparison of One-Year Clinical Outcomes Between Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Implantation of Drug-Eluting Stents for Left Main Lesions: A Single-Center Analysis of A 1,016-Patient Cohort

Fractional Flow Reserve or Intravascular Ultrasound for PCI.

Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of Intravascular Ultrasound Versus Angiography-Guided Drug Eluting Stent Implantation in Left Main Coronary Disease in 4592 Patients

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

Comparison of Intravascular Ultrasound Guided Versus Angiography Guided Drug Eluting Stent Implantation: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The long-term clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided coronary drug eluting stent implantation in long de novo coronary lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Imaging-guided PCI improves outcomes in patients with multivessel disease a meta-analysis of randomized and observational trials comparing treatment of ACS

Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndromes (IVUS-ACS): a Two-Stage, Multicentre, Randomised Trial