OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes and rates of optimal stent placement between optical coherence tomography (OCT) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: Unlike IVUS-guided PCI, rates of clinical outcomes and optimal stent placement have not been well characterized for OCT-guided PCI. METHODS: The study enrolled 290 patients who underwent implantation of a second generation drug eluting stent under OCT (122 patients) or IVUS (168 patients) guidance. The two groups were compared after adjusting for baseline differences using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) (114 patients in each group). Optimal stent placement was defined as achieving an adequate lumen (optimal minimum stent area [MSA > 4.85 mm(2) for OCT, >5 mm(2) for IVUS] or a final MSA ≥ 90% of the distal reference lumen area, without edge dissection, incomplete stent apposition, or tissue prolapse), or otherwise performing additional interventions to address suboptimal post-stenting OCT or IVUS findings. The primary endpoint was one-year cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization). Definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) rates were evaluated. RESULTS: In adjusted comparisons between OCT and IVUS groups, there was no significant difference in rates of MACE (3.5% vs. 3.5%, P = 1.000) and ST (0% vs. 0.9%, P = 1.000) at 1 year, optimal stent placement (89.5% vs. 92.1%, P = 0.492), and further intervention (7.9% vs.13.2%, P = 0.234), despite OCT significantly more frequently detecting tissue prolapse (97.4% vs. 47.4%, P < 0.001), and numerically more edge dissection (10.5% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.078) or incomplete stent apposition (48.2% vs. 36.8%, P = 0.082). CONCLUSIONS: OCT guidance showed comparable results to IVUS in mid-term clinical outcomes, suggesting that OCT can be an alternative tool for stent placement optimization.
OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes and rates of optimal stent placement between optical coherence tomography (OCT) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: Unlike IVUS-guided PCI, rates of clinical outcomes and optimal stent placement have not been well characterized for OCT-guided PCI. METHODS: The study enrolled 290 patients who underwent implantation of a second generation drug eluting stent under OCT (122 patients) or IVUS (168 patients) guidance. The two groups were compared after adjusting for baseline differences using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) (114 patients in each group). Optimal stent placement was defined as achieving an adequate lumen (optimal minimum stent area [MSA > 4.85 mm(2) for OCT, >5 mm(2) for IVUS] or a final MSA ≥ 90% of the distal reference lumen area, without edge dissection, incomplete stent apposition, or tissue prolapse), or otherwise performing additional interventions to address suboptimal post-stenting OCT or IVUS findings. The primary endpoint was one-year cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization). Definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) rates were evaluated. RESULTS: In adjusted comparisons between OCT and IVUS groups, there was no significant difference in rates of MACE (3.5% vs. 3.5%, P = 1.000) and ST (0% vs. 0.9%, P = 1.000) at 1 year, optimal stent placement (89.5% vs. 92.1%, P = 0.492), and further intervention (7.9% vs.13.2%, P = 0.234), despite OCT significantly more frequently detecting tissue prolapse (97.4% vs. 47.4%, P < 0.001), and numerically more edge dissection (10.5% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.078) or incomplete stent apposition (48.2% vs. 36.8%, P = 0.082). CONCLUSIONS: OCT guidance showed comparable results to IVUS in mid-term clinical outcomes, suggesting that OCT can be an alternative tool for stent placement optimization.