Does intracoronary imaging improve diagnostic accuracy and optimize intervention results compared to coronary angiography in patients with coronary artery disease?
Intracoronary imaging with IVUS and OCT provides objective, 3-dimensional lesion assessment that enhances decision-making and optimizes revascularization outcomes compared to standard angiography.
Background: Intracoronary imaging is an important tool for guiding decision making in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Sources of data: We have reviewed the latest available evidence in the field to highlight the various potential benefits of intravascular imaging. Areas of agreement: Coronary angiography has been considered the gold standard test to appropriately diagnose and manage patients with coronary artery disease, but it has the inherent limitation of being a 2-dimensional x-ray lumenogram of a complex 3-dimensional vascular structure. Areas of controversy: There is well-established inter- and intra-observer variability in reporting coronary angiograms leading to potential variability in various management strategies. Intracoronary imaging improves the diagnostic accuracy while optimizing the results of an intervention. Utilization of intracoronary imaging modalities in routine practice however remains low worldwide. Increased costs, resources, time and expertise have been cited as explanations for low incorporation of these techniques. Growing points: Intracoronary imaging supplements and enhances an operator's decision-making ability based on detailed and objective lesion assessment rather than a subjective visual estimation. The benefits of intravascular imaging are becoming more profound as the complexity of cases suitable for revascularization increases. Areas timely for developing research: While the clinical benefits of intravascular ultrasound have been well validated, optical coherence tomography in comparison is a newer technology, with robust clinical trials assessing its clinical benefit are underway.
Parviz et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: