Key result
OCT-guided PCI matches IVUS-guided PCI for 1-year major ischemic events.
Why the study?
Does OCT-guided PCI result in noninferior clinical outcomes compared to IVUS-guided PCI in patients with significant coronary artery lesions?
RCT (n=2,008)
Open-label
1:1 ratio
Yes
Does OCT-guided PCI result in noninferior clinical outcomes compared to IVUS-guided PCI in patients with significant coronary artery lesions?
Effect estimate: absolute difference -0.6 percentage points (95% CI upper boundary of one-sided 97.5% CI, 0.97 percentage points)
Absolute Event Rate: 2.5% vs 3.1%
Absolute Risk Reduction: 0.6%
p-value: p=<0.001 for noninferiority
OCT-guided PCI is noninferior to IVUS-guided PCI with respect to a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related MI, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization at 1 year.
BACKGROUND: Intravascular imaging–guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT) showed superior clinical outcomes compared with angiography-guided PCI. However, the comparative effectiveness of OCT-guided and IVUS-guided PCI regarding clinical outcomes is unknown. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, open-label, pragmatic trial, we randomly assigned 2008 patients with significant coronary artery lesions undergoing PCI in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either an OCT-guided or IVUS-guided PCI. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiac causes, target vessel–related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization at 1 year, which was powered for noninferiority of the OCT group compared with the IVUS group. Safety outcomes were also assessed. RESULTS: At 1 year, primary end point events occurred in 25 of 1005 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 2.5%) in the OCT group and in 31 of 1003 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 3.1%) in the IVUS group (absolute difference, −0.6 percentage points; upper boundary of one-sided 97.5% CI, 0.97 percentage points; P <0.001 for noninferiority). The incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy was similar (14 patients [1.4%] in the OCT group versus 15 patients [1.5%] in the IVUS group; P =0.85). The incidence of major procedural complications was lower in the OCT group than in the IVUS group (22 [2.2%] versus 37 [3.7%]; P =0.047), although imaging procedure-related complications were not observed. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with significant coronary artery lesions, OCT-guided PCI was noninferior to IVUS-guided PCI with respect to the incidence of a composite of death from cardiac causes, target vessel–related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization at 1 year. The selected study population and lower-than-expected event rates should be considered in interpreting the trial. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique number: NCT03394079.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kang et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in Significant coronary artery lesions (n=2,008). OCT-guided PCI vs. IVUS-guided PCI was evaluated on Composite of death from cardiac causes, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization at 1 year (absolute difference -0.6 percentage points, 95% CI upper boundary of one-sided 97.5% CI, 0.97 percentage points, p=<0.001 for noninferiority). OCT-guided PCI was noninferior to IVUS-guided PCI for cardiac death, target vessel-related MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization at 1 year (2.5% vs 3.1%; P<0.001 for noninferiority).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: