Optical Coherence Tomography-Guided vs. Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Complex Coronary Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Despite advances in coronary artery disease (CAD) treatment, challenges persist, particularly in complex lesions. While percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is widely used, its outcomes can be affected by complications like restenosis. Optical coherence tomography (OCT), offering higher-resolution imaging than angiography, shows promise in guiding PCI. However, meta-analytical comparisons between OCT-guided and angiography-guided PCI remain limited. Methods: Databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov, were queried through May 2025 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OCT-guided PCI with angiography-guided PCI. Data were pooled using risk ratios (RRs) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in a random-effects model. Results: Five RCTs involving 5737 patients (OCT: 2738 and angiography: 2999) were included. On pooled analysis, OCT-guided PCI was associated with a notable reduction in major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) (RR: 0.71, p = 0.0001), cardiac mortality (RR: 0.43, p = 0.003), target lesion revascularization (TLR) (RR: 0.53, p = 0.007), and stroke (RR: 0.17, p = 0.02), compared to angiography-guided PCI. No significant differences were noted for all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction. Conclusions: In patients with complex coronary lesions, OCT-guided PCI reduces the risk of MACE, cardiac mortality, TLR, and stroke, compared to angiography-guided PCI only. This study supports incorporating advanced imaging techniques like OCT to improve clinical outcomes, especially in complex PCIs.