Coronary disease & ACSSecondary analysis
Impact of Intravascular Imaging-Guided Stent Optimization According to Clinical Presentation in Patients Undergoing Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI)
- Secondary analysis of the RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI randomised trial
- prespecified, stratified subgroup analysis
- 2:1 randomisation
Authors' conclusion
No significant interaction was observed between the benefits of intravascular imaging and clinical presentation in the risk of TVF. Stent optimization by intravascular imaging was particularly important for ACS patients.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with complex coronary artery lesions undergoing PCI832 acute coronary syndrome (ACS), 807 CCS
- Participants
- 1,639 patients
- Comparison
- Intravascular imaging-guided PCI vs angiography-guided PCI, by clinical presentation (ACS vs CCS)
- Primary endpoint
- Target vessel failure (TVF) (cardiac death, target vessel-related MI or clinically driven target vessel revascularization)
- Follow-up
- Median 2.1 years (Q1-Q3: 1.4-3.0 years)
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
TVF by clinical presentation · median 2.1 years
Intravascular imaging vs AngiographyHazard ratio (95% CI)P value
ACS: 10.4% vs 14.6%
0.74(0.48–1.15)
P = 0.18CCS: 5.0% vs 10.4%
0.46(0.27–0.80)
P = 0.006Further findings
| Outcome | HR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| TVF, optimized vs unoptimized stent by intravascular imaging (imaging arm) — Optimized vs Unoptimized · ACS: 6.5% vs 14.1% | 0.49 (0.27–0.87) | P = 0.02 | |
| TVF, optimized vs unoptimized stent by intravascular imaging (imaging arm) — Optimized vs Unoptimized · CCS: 5.4% vs 4.7% | 1.18 (0.53–2.59) | P = 0.69 | |
| 0.20.5125Hazard ratio (log scale) |
Original publication
Impact of Intravascular Imaging-Guided Stent Optimization According to Clinical Presentation in Patients Undergoing Complex PCI. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Published 27 May 2024. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2024.03.021
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it