Coronary disease & ACSRandomised controlled trial
Intravascular Imaging- vs Angiography-Guided Complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)
- Randomised controlled trial
- prospective
- multicentre
- open-label
- superiority
- 2:1 randomisation
Authors' conclusion
In patients with complex coronary artery lesions undergoing PCI, intravascular imaging guidance reduced the risk of a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization at median follow-up of 5.3 years, compared to angiography guidance.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with complex coronary artery lesions, South Korea
- Participants
- 1,639 patients
- Comparison
- Intravascular imaging-guided PCI vs angiography-guided PCI
- Imaging-guided PCIn = 1,092
- Angiography-guided PCIn = 547reference
- Primary endpoint
- Cardiac death, target vessel-related MI or clinically driven target vessel revascularization
- Follow-up
- Median 5.3 years (Q1-Q3: 4.4-6.2 years)
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
median 5.3 years
Hazard ratio
0.68
95% CI 0.51–0.91
P = 0.009
Events by treatment group
Imaging-guided PCI vs Angiography-guided PCI
HR 0.68 (95% CI 0.51–0.91); P = 0.009
Further findings
Cardiac death or target vessel-related MI
Clinically driven target vessel revascularization
Safety
Definite stent thrombosis
Procedure-related safety events
- No apparent differences between the groups
Original publication
Intravascular Imaging- vs Angiography-Guided Complex PCI. J Am Coll Cardiol. Published 4 March 2026. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2026.01.035
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it