Clinical outcomes of optical coherence tomography versus conventional angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis

Background: Performing optical coherence tomography (OCT) as a guide for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to conventional coronary angiography has been the subject of the recent cohorts and randomized trials. However, clear evidence demonstrating its superiority is still controversial.

Methods: We performed a thorough search in digital databases to find the relevant observational studies and randomized trials comparing OCT and angiography in patients undergoing PCI. A random-effects meta-analysis was undertaken comparing clinical outcomes to generate an odds ratio (OR) with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyzes were performed based on study design, underlying cardiac condition, and complexity of cases.

Results: A total of 21 studies (10 RCTs and 11 observational studies) with 11,163 participants (5319: OCT and 5844: angiography group) were included for quantitative synthesis. Performing OCT was associated with lower odds of all-cause (OR (95% CI) = 0.56 (0.48; 0.67)) and cardiac mortality (OR (95% CI) = 0.47 (0.35; 0.63)), major adverse cardiovascular events (OR (95% CI) = 0.60 (0.48; 0.76)), myocardial infarction (OR (95% CI) = 0.79 (0.64; 0.97)), and stent thrombosis (OR (95% CI) = 0.61 (0.39; 0.96)) compared to the angiography group. Other clinical outcomes were similar between the studied groups. The outperformance of OCT was more evident in observational studies and the ones with PCI on complex lesions.

Conclusion: Performing OCT prior to PCI is associated with better clinical outcomes compared to angiography alone based on contemporary evidence. Future well-designed randomized trials are needed to confirm the findings of this meta-analysis.