50 A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing optical coherence tomography-guided against angiography-guided revascularisation

Optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) offers more in-depth assessment of plaque morphology, vessel sizing and post-PCI stent deployment characteristics than angiography guidance alone. Previous studies have demonstrated superiority of OCT-guided compared to angiography-guided PCI in stent implantation and expansion, with no difference in safety outcomes. Despite this, adoption of OCT-guided PCI remains low in clinical practice due to its increased procedural time, larger contrast volume, added cost and varying degree of experience and confidence in its interpretation. Two large multicentre international randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were recently published. We therefore aimed to perform an up-to-date meta-analysis of RCTs comparing OCT-guided revascularisation against angiography-guided revascularisation on hard clinical outcomes. A comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE and Ovid/Embase was performed, of which only RCTs were included. Two authors identified relevant articles and extracted the data independently (YJ and TJ). Any disagreements were resolved by a third author (HB). Clinical outcome data was extracted from each study and then pooled to determine the overall risk ratio (RR) and confidence interval (CI) collectively. This was calculated with random-effects model using the Mantel-Haenszel method using RevMan 5.4 (Nordic Cochrane Centre). All reported P values are two-sided, with significance set at PConflict of Interest None