Intravascular imaging guided versus coronary angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention: systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors' conclusion
Compared with coronary angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention, intravascular imaging guided percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with significantly reduced cardiac death and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with CAD undergoing PCI
- Participants
- 11,698 adults20 RCTs
- Comparison
- Intravascular imaging guided vs coronary angiography guided PCI
- Outcome
- Cardiac death, MI, stent thrombosis, target vessel revascularization and target lesion revascularization
Methodological detailsrandom effect meta-analysis, GRADE
- Random effect meta-analysis
- GRADE
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Intravascular imaging vs AngiographyRate ratio (95% CI)
Cardiac death
0.53(0.39–0.72)
MI
0.81(0.68–0.97)
Stent thrombosis
0.44(0.27–0.72)
Target vessel revascularization
0.74(0.61–0.89)
Target lesion revascularization
0.71(0.59–0.86)
Further pooled results
| Outcome | Rate ratio (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| All cause deathNot reduced | 0.81 (0.64–1.02) | |
| 0.512Rate ratio (log scale) |
Absolute effects per 1000 people by SYNTAX risk category (low to high risk) · five years
- Fewer cardiac deaths
- 23 to 64
- Fewer MIs
- 15 to 19
- Fewer stent thrombosis events
- 9 to 13
- Fewer target vessel revascularization events
- 28 to 38
- Fewer target lesion revascularization events
- 35 to 48
- High certainty evidence
Original publication
Intravascular imaging guided versus coronary angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. Published 16 November 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →