This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) guided by intravascular imaging or physiological assessment versus conventional angiography guidance. The analysis included 43 randomized controlled trials with 39,291 patients undergoing PCI for acute or non-acute coronary syndromes. The primary outcome was trial-defined major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs).
Compared with angiography-guided PCI, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided PCI was associated with a lower risk of MACEs (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60-0.79). Optical coherence tomography/optical frequency domain imaging (OCT/OCTA)-guided PCI also showed benefit (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.90). Among physiology-guided approaches, fractional flow reserve (FFR) guidance was associated with a lower risk of MACEs versus angiography (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70-0.95). The analysis also suggested IVUS may be superior to instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) guidance (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-1.00).
Safety and tolerability data were not reported in the provided evidence. Key limitations include the use of indirect comparisons across different guidance modalities and the lack of detailed safety profiles. The findings are based on aggregate trial data rather than individual patient-level analysis.
For clinical practice, this evidence suggests that intravascular imaging-guided PCI (IVUS or OCT/OCTA) and FFR-guided PCI may offer advantages over standard angiography guidance in reducing MACEs. However, the choice of guidance modality should consider individual patient factors, lesion characteristics, and local expertise, as the analysis does not establish definitive superiority of one modality over all others.
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: Despite current guidelines recommending physiology- and intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in specific lesion subsets, angiography-guided PCI remains common in practice. The comparative effectiveness of these strategies remains uncertain. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes of PCI guided by intravascular imaging or physiological assessment versus conventional angiography.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, searching PubMed and EMBASE up to May 31, 2025. Eligible studies compared at least 2 of the following 6 guidance modalities in PCI: angiography, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), optical coherence tomography/optical frequency domain imaging, fractional flow reserve, angiography-derived fractional flow reserve, and instantaneous wave-free ratio. The primary outcome was trial-defined major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were pooled using a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses assessed clinical presentation and guidance objectives such as decision making and procedural optimization.
RESULTS: We identified 43 randomized controlled trials involving 39 291 patients. IVUS-guided PCI (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.60-0.79]), optical coherence tomography/optical frequency domain imaging-guided PCI (HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.63-0.90]), and fractional flow reserve-guided PCI (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.70-0.95]) were associated with a lower risk of MACEs compared with angiography-guided PCI. Furthermore, IVUS-guided PCI was associated with a lower risk of MACEs compared with instantaneous wave-free ratio-guided PCI (HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.55-1.00]). IVUS-guided PCI reduced the risk of MACE in both acute coronary syndrome and non-acute coronary syndrome patients.
CONCLUSIONS: IVUS- and optical coherence tomography/optical frequency domain imaging-guided PCI were superior to angiography-guided PCI in reducing MACEs. Among the physiology-based approaches, only fractional flow reserve showed a clear benefit.