Research in context
Evidence before this study
We searched PubMed using the search terms “optical coherence tomography”, “intravascular ultrasound”, “angiography”, and “percutaneous coronary intervention” using MeSH terms and appropriate variations up to Dec 5, 2014, with no language restrictions, before designing our study. We found no previous randomised controlled trials that compared all three methods in terms of either acute procedural success or clinical outcomes. Several studies, mostly observational, but some randomised controlled trials compared intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) with angiography. Meta-analyses of these studies identified reductions in target lesion failure, stent thrombosis, major adverse cardiovascular events, and death with use of IVUS, largely as a result of larger minimum stent area. Investigators of observational studies comparing optical coherence tomography (OCT) with angiography suggested that although OCT guidance frequently led physicians to change their percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy, it often led to implantation of smaller diameter stents than with angiography. Only one head-to-head study of 70 patients compared OCT with IVUS directly, in which IVUS led to larger postprocedural minimum stent area than did OCT.
Added value of this study
This is the first randomised controlled trial to compare OCT-guided, IVUS-guided, and angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention. The study was done in eight countries in 29 hospitals with liberal inclusion criteria representing the global practice of interventional cardiology. Despite its better resolution than that of IVUS, OCT technology has various limitations, including incomplete visualisation of the vessel wall in some lipid-rich lesions, resulting in use of smaller stents based on luminal dimensions than with IVUS and angiography. To overcome these limitations, we introduced a standardised method for stent sizing based on preintervention OCT measurements of the external elastic lamina. OCT guidance using this stent optimisation protocol was non-inferior to IVUS guidance for the primary endpoint of postprocedure minimum stent area. OCT guidance led to greater stent expansion and acute procedural success than did angiography guidance, with fewer untreated major dissections and malappositions than with IVUS guidance.
Implications of all the available evidence
Since the inception of our study, the 800 patient multicentre randomised controlled OPINION trial showed that target vessel failure of OCT guidance was non-inferior to that of IVUS guidance at 12 months. These results are consistent with what we would have predicted from the similar minimum stent area achieved with the two imaging methods in our study. Another 240 patient multicentre randomised controlled trial, DOCTORS, showed that OCT guidance slightly improved postprocedural fractional flow reserve in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction compared with angiography guidance, without affecting clinical outcomes. Our study is the first to compare all three methods and substantiates the prevailing view that imaging guidance confers advantages compared with angiography guidance alone and, furthermore, that OCT guidance is non-inferior to IVUS guidance for achieving acute procedural success. OCT guidance led to fewer untreated major dissections and malappositions than did IVUS guidance. Larger randomised controlled trials than this one are required to show whether or not OCT guidance results in superior clinical outcomes than does IVUS guidance or angiography guidance.