Usefulness of Frequency Domain Optical Coherence Tomography Compared with Intravascular Ultrasound as a Guidance for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

ObjectivesTo compare outcomes and rates of optimal stent placement between optical coherence tomography (OCT) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BackgroundUnlike IVUS-guided PCI, rates of clinical outcomes and optimal stent placement have not been well characterized for OCT-guided PCI. MethodsThe study enrolled 290 patients who underwent implantation of a second generation drug eluting stent under OCT (122 patients) or IVUS (168 patients) guidance. The two groups were compared after adjusting for baseline differences using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) (114 patients in each group). Optimal stent placement was defined as achieving an adequate lumen (optimal minimum stent area [MSA > 4.85mm(2) for OCT, >5mm(2) for IVUS] or a final MSA 90% of the distal reference lumen area, without edge dissection, incomplete stent apposition, or tissue prolapse), or otherwise performing additional interventions to address suboptimal post-stenting OCT or IVUS findings. The primary endpoint was one-year cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization). Definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) rates were evaluated. ResultsIn adjusted comparisons between OCT and IVUS groups, there was no significant difference in rates of MACE (3.5% vs. 3.5%, P=1.000) and ST (0% vs. 0.9%, P=1.000) at 1 year, optimal stent placement (89.5% vs. 92.1%, P=0.492), and further intervention (7.9% vs.13.2%, P=0.234), despite OCT significantly more frequently detecting tissue prolapse (97.4% vs. 47.4%, P<0.001), and numerically more edge dissection (10.5% vs. 4.4%, P=0.078) or incomplete stent apposition (48.2% vs. 36.8%, P=0.082). ConclusionsOCT guidance showed comparable results to IVUS in mid-term clinical outcomes, suggesting that OCT can be an alternative tool for stent placement optimization. (J Interven Cardiol 2016;29:216-224)