Coronary disease & ACSMeta-analysis
Intravascular imaging guided versus coronary angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention: systematic review and meta-analysis
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials
- random effect meta-analysis
- GRADE
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 adults · 20 RCTs
- Comparison
- Intravascular imaging guided vs coronary angiography guided PCI
- Outcome
- Cardiac death, MI, stent thrombosis, target vessel revascularization and target lesion revascularization
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 death · not 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:10.1136/bmj-2023-077848
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it