Intravascular Imaging-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Before and After Standardized Optimization Protocols
Authors' conclusion
IVI-guided PCI improved clinical outcomes more than angiography-guided PCI. In addition, application of standardized optimization protocols when using IVI further improved clinical outcomes after PCI.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), institutional registry (2008–2015) and recent trial (2018–2021)2,972 past + 1,639 present
- Exposure
- Intravascular imaging (IVI)-guided vs angiography-guided PCI; present IVI vs past IVI
- Outcome
- Target vessel failure (TVF) (cardiac death, target vessel MI or target vessel revascularization)
- Follow-up
- 3 years
Methodological detailsregistry and trial cohorts, inverse-probability-weighting adjusted analysis
- Registry and trial cohorts
- Inverse-probability-weighting adjusted analysis
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
3-year TVF
IVI-guided PCI vs Angiography-guided PCI
Estimate (95% CI)P value
Hazard ratiomainly driven by reduced cardiac death or MI
0.77(0.61–0.97)
P = 0.027Present IVI vs Past IVI
Estimate (95% CI)P value
Hazard ratiodriven by reduced target vessel revascularization
0.63(0.42–0.94)
P = 0.025Observational data: associations, not effects.
Original publication
Intravascular Imaging-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Before and After Standardized Optimization Protocols. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Published 22 January 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →