Skip to main content
Download PDF

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) - versus angiography-guided strategy for percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

BMC Cardiovascular Disorders volume 24, Article number: 262 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) guidance in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been shown to improve procedural outcomes. However, evidence supporting its superiority over angiography-guided PCI in terms of clinical outcomes is still emerging and limited. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of OCT-guided PCI versus angiography‐guided PCI in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).

Methods

A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to identify randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical outcomes of OCT-guided and angiography‐guided PCI in patients with CAD. Clinical endpoints including all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were assessed.

Results

Eleven RCTs, comprising 2,699 patients in the OCT-guided group and 2,968 patients in the angiography-guided group met inclusion criteria. OCT-guided PCI was associated with significantly lower rates of cardiovascular death(RR 0.56; 95%CI: 0.32–0.98; p = 0.04; I2 = 0%), stent thrombosis(RR 0.56; 95%CI: 0.33–0.95; p = 0.03; I2 = 0%), and MACE (RR 0.79; 95%CI: 0.66–0.95; p = 0.01; I2 = 5%). The incidence of all-cause death (RR 0.71; 95%CI: 0.49–1.02; p = 0.06; I2 = 0%), myocardial infarction (RR 0.86; 95%CI: 0.67–1.10; p = 0.22; I2 = 0%) and TLR (RR 0.98; 95%CI: 0.73–1.33; p = 0.91; I2 = 0%) was non-significantly lower in the OCT-guided group.

Conclusions

Among patients undergoing PCI, OCT-guided PCI was associated with lower incidences of cardiovascular death, stent thrombosis and MACE compared to angiography-guided PCI.

Trial registration

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023484342.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) under angiographic guidance has significantly reduced the rates of stent-related or target-vessel adverse clinical events [1]. Unlike angiography, intravascular imaging techniques such as optical coherence tomography (OCT) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), offer unique advantages in assessing lesion characteristics, enhancing procedural optimization [2]. Recent studies have indicated that PCI under guidance of intravascular imaging may lead to improved cardiovascular outcomes, including reduced in-hospital mortality, myocardial infarction, and target-lesion revascularization [3, 4].

Optical coherence tomography is a light-based modality of intravascular imaging with superior axial resolution compared to IVUS (15 vs. 150 mm), enabling detailed assessment of plaque components and precise measurements of vessel and stent dimensions [5]. OCT’s accurate surpasses that of angiography and IVUS in identifying subtle morphological details such as malapposition, residual thrombus, plaque prolapse, and residual dissections, contributing to improved procedural outcomes [6]. In instances of stent failure, OCT should be considered to identify and address underlying mechanical factors [7]. However, evidence supporting OCT guidance in PCI is promising yet limited albeit. Buccheri et al. found a significant reduction of major adverse cardiac events and cardiac death with OCT compared to coronary angiography (CA) in a meta-analysis of 14 observational studies, although a sensitivity analysis restricted to RCTs showed no significant difference in outcomes [2]. Park et al.‘s network meta-analysis, comparing IVUS-, OCT-, and CA-guided PCI, revealed OCT and IVUS to be comparable across all endpoints, with OCT’s superiority over CA unconfirmed due to the small size and limited number of studies involving OCT, affecting the power to detect its potential benefits [8].

The recent publication of two well-designed randomized control trials (RCTs) ILUMIEN IV OPTIMAL PCI and OCTOBER [9, 10], has contributed additional evidence on the efficacy of OCT-guided coronary intervention. With updated clinical data, we conducted a meta-analysis to directly compare OCT‐guided versus angiography‐guided PCI.

Methods

This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist [11]. Systematic database search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant articles using keywords such as: “Optical Coherence Tomography”, “OCT”, “Intravascular Imaging”, “PCI”, “Percutaneous Coronary Intervention” and “Angiography”. Additionally, references from pertinent studies, reviews, editorials, letters, and related conference abstracts were also reviewed.

Inclusion criteria were RCTs directly comparing clinical outcomes between OCT-guided and angiography-guided PCI, encompassing all clinical presentations. Studies not in English or involving non-human subjects or lacking clinical data were excluded. Titles and abstracts were initially screened; full text articles were reviewed if the study appeared potentially eligible.

Efficacy endpoints included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), each defined as per the original study.

Two investigators independently assessed reports for eligibility at title and/or at abstract level, with divergences resolved by a third reviewer. The risk of bias was evaluated by the same two reviewers, in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration methods [12].

Data analysis was performed with Review Manager (Rev-Man, version 5.3, the Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2013). We calculated risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) from reported event frequencies. Heterogeneity among trial results was assessed using the Chi [2] statistic for heterogeneity and the I [2] index for inconsistency. Results were reported as the p-value from the Chi [2] test (p < 0.05 indicating significant heterogeneity) and the I [2] value, with interpretations of low (0–25%), moderate (50–75%), and high (> 75%) inconsistency levels. In the absence of significant heterogeneity (P > 0.1 and I2 < 50%), RR and CI were combined using a fixed-effect model. If significant heterogeneity was present (P ≤ 0.1 and I2 ≥ 50%), the random-effects model (Mantel-Haenszel) was used. To explore potential causes of study heterogeneity, subgroup analysis focusing on ACS patients and those receiving new-generation DES implantation was performed. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to verify that studies with a serious risk of bias did not influence the main analysis outcomes. To evaluate potential publication bias, funnel plots were generated to reflect the trial results against their precision.

Results

Following deduplication, titles and abstracts screening, and full-text review based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 11 RCT studies [9, 10, 13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21] involving 5,667 patients were qualified for analysis (Fig. 1). The detailed characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 1. Studies varied with regard to the year of publication, clinical presentation, type of stents, and duration of follow up. In general, 2,699 (47.6%) patients underwent OCT-guided PCI, while 2,968 (52.4%) received angiography-guided PCI. Four studies [14, 17, 18, 21] exclusively focused on patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), while two studies [9, 13] primarily addressed complex coronary-artery lesions. Nine trials exclusively used drug eluting stents, whereas two trials [14, 16] employed only biodegradable stents.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of study selection

Full size image
Table 1 The characteristics of the study included
Full size table

For all-cause mortality, ten studies involving 4,725 patients found that OCT-guided PCI non-significantly reduced all-cause mortality compared to CA guidance, with a relative risk (RR) of 0.71 (RR 0.71; 95% CI: 0.49–1.02; p = 0.06; I2 = 0%) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot for incidence of all cause death, myocardial infarction (MI) and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Risk ratio for individual studies (squares) and meta-analysis (diamonds) and 95% CI (horizontal lines) are presented

Full size image

Similarly, for myocardial infarction, the same ten studies showed no significant difference in incidence between OCT-guided and CA-guided PCI (RR 0.86; 95% CI: 0.67–1.10; p = 0.22; I2 = 0%) (Fig. 2).

Another ten studies involving 4,682 patients also reported no significant difference in target lesion revascularization (RR 0.98; 95% CI: 0.73–1.33; p = 0.91; I2 = 0%) (Fig. 2).

Fore cardiovascular death, an analysis of ten studies with 4,485 patients indicated that OCT-guided PCI significantly reduced the incidence of cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.56; 95% CI: 0.32–0.98; p = 0.04; I2 = 0%) (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot for incidence of cardiovascular death, stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Risk ratio for individual studies (squares) and meta-analysis (diamonds) and 95% CI (horizontal lines) are presented

Full size image

For stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), ten studies with 4,842 patients and eleven studies with 5,667 patients, respectively, showed a significant reduction in both outcomes with OCT-guided PCI (RR 0.56; 95% CI: 0.33–0.95; p = 0.03; I2 = 0%) and (RR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.66–0.95; p = 0.01; I2 = 5%) (Fig. 3).

Subgroup analyses revealed that among studies exclusively involving patients with ACS, no significant difference were observed between OCT- and angiography-guided PCI regarding all-cause mortality (RR 1.06 95% CI: 0.15–7.65; p = 0.95; I2 = 0%), TLR (RR 1.91 95% CI: 0.35–10.33; p = 0.45; I2 = 0%), stent thrombosis (RR 0.60 95% CI: 0.08–4.62; p = 0.63; I2 = 0%), or MACE (RR 1.18 95% CI: 0.38–3.72; p = 0.77; I2 = 0%) as shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Subgroup analysis
Full size table

For studies utilizing new-generation DES, OCT-guided PCI significantly reduced the incidence of cardiovascular death (RR 0.56 95% CI: 0.32–0.98; p = 0.04; I2 = 0%) and stent thrombosis (RR 0.56 95% CI: 0.33–0.95; p = 0.03; I2 = 0%). Yet, the rates of all-cause mortality (RR 0.69 95% CI: 0.48-1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 0%), MI (RR 0.85 95% CI: 0.66–1.09; p = 0.20; I2 = 0%), TLR (RR 0.96 95% CI: 0.71–1.30; p = 0.78; I2 = 0%) and MACE (RR 0.84 95% CI: 0.69–1.03; p = 0.09; I2 = 0%) showed no significant difference between the two groups.

Bias assessment indicated a low-to-moderate risk of bias across all studies. The funnel plot exhibited no asymmetry, suggesting an absence of publication bias. (Fig. 4)

Fig. 4
figure 4

The funnel plot for incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events and risk of bias

Full size image

Discussion

Unlike traditional angiography that can only visualize intra-coronary lumen in two dimensions, optical coherence tomography offers an accurate and high-resolution visualization of culprit lesion morphology, enabling the optimization of stent implantation and minimization of stent-related complications. This distinctive capability has led to its widespread adoption as a crucial imaging tool in PCI. Several clinical trials have investigated OCT’s potential advantages over standard angiography-guided PCI. For example, a retrospective analysis from the Pan-London PCI registry, which included 123,764 patients treated in National Health Service hospitals in London from 2005 to 2015, demonstrated that OCT-guided PCI was associated with improved procedural outcomes, in-hospital events, and long-term survival [4]. The ILUMIEN III: OPTIMIZE PCI study found that OCT guidance was non-inferior to IVUS guidance (one-sided 97.5% lower CI − 0.70 mm [2]; p = 0.001), but failed to show superiority to angiography guidance (p = 0.12), possibly due to insufficient statistical power. Furthermore, a network meta-analysis comparing IVUS, OCT, and CA‐guided PCI, which integrated both direct and indirect evidence, found no significant differences in clinical efficacy among OCT and IVUS, or between IVUS and CA [8]. However, studies using OCT were relatively few and small, potentially lacking the power to uncover the clinical advantage of OCT guidance.

Recently, two rigorously conducted RCTs, namely “Optical Coherence Tomography Guided Coronary Stent Implantation Compared with Angiography: A Multicenter Randomized Trial in PCI " (ILUMIEN IV: OPTIMAL PCI), and “Optical Coherence Tomography Optimized Bifurcation Event Reduction” (OCTOBER), have been published, explicitly compareing OCT-guided and angiography-guided PCI [9, 10]. The OCTOBER trial demonstrated that in patients with complex coronary-artery bifurcation lesions, OCT-guided PCI was associated with a lower incidence of MACE at two years compared to angiography-guided PCI, without an increase in procedure-related complications. Meanwhile, the ILUMIEN IV trial found that OCT guidance resulted in a larger minimum stent area than angiography guidance at the index procedure, yet there was no observed difference in the incidence of target-vessel failure at two years. With such dedicated head-to-head comparative studies and a broader sample size, we have updated the pooling analysis and demonstrated the superiority of OCT-guided over angiography-guided PCI across a majority of clinical endpoints.

The role of OCT in understanding the pathology of acute coronary syndrome and guiding its intervention is being increasingly acknowledged. Pathological studies of sudden coronary death have identified plaque rupture, plaque erosion, and calcified nodules as the primary coronary plaque morphologies leading to thrombosis ACS, all of which could be clearly identified with OCT [22]. Several studies examining ACS patients with OCT have shown that plaque rupture at the culprit lesion had more pan-coronary plaque vulnerability and cause worse clinical outcomes compared to plaque erosion [23, 24]. Consequently, OCT enables a more precise assessment of the underlying pathology of ACS, offering considerable diagnostic and prognostic benefits that may potentially translate into improved clinical outcomes [25]. Moreover, in cases of coronary calcification, PCI under OCT guidance facilitates enhanced stent expansion and marked reduction in calcium thickness [26]. Despite a gradual increase in the clinical application of OCT for primary PCI in ACS, its usage rate remains substantially lower than that of IVUS [27].

Our subgroup analysis showed that OCT-guided PCI had similar clinical efficacy with angiography-guided PCI in ACS patients. This observation might be attributed to several factors. Firstly, most studies within our ACS subgroup selected angiographic endpoints, such as average coronary artery healing and the percentage of uncovered struts, leading to a limited sample size (827 patients) not powerful to detect a potential difference. On the other hand, the reported follow-up duration, not exceeding one year, is too short to demonstrate the full benefits of OCT guidance in procedural optimization.

Despite its evident advantages, the routine application of coronary intravascular imaging remains limited. A recent survey highlighted predominant reasons for reluctance to use intravascular imaging included high cost, uncertainty regarding its additional clinical benefits, and concerns over the adequacy of image interpretation skills and subsequent reaction to optimize stenting. In fact, guidance with intravascular imaging could prove more cost-efficiency over time by decreasing the need for future interventional procedures and rehospitalizations [28].

Several limitations of our study should be noted. Firstly, our analysis was unable to account for variations in clinical practice across the different studies, including the impact of various clinical condition, coronary anatomy, lesion preparations techniques, and different definitions for measured outcomes. Secondly, the protocols of PCI optimization under OCT may vary among the trials; for example, criteria for optimal stent expansion are not identical. Furthermore, the percentage of PCI procedures that satisfied the criteria for optimal stenting differed from trial to trial. Additionally, although our funnel plot did not indicate a significant publication bias among the included studies, publication bias may still exist despite our best efforts to conduct a comprehensive search.

Conclusion

In patients undergoing PCI, the use of OCT guidance was associated with a lower incidence of cardiovascular death, stent thrombosis, and MACE when compared to angiography-guided PCI.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ACS:

Acute coronary syndrome

CA:

Coronary angiography

CAD:

Coronary artery disease

CI:

Confidence interval

DES:

Drug-eluting stents

IVUS:

Intravascular ultrasound

MACE:

Major adverse cardiovascular event

MI:

Myocardial infarction

OCT:

Optical coherence tomography

PCI:

Percutaneous coronary intervention

RCT:

Randomized controlled trial

RR:

Risk ratio

TLR:

Target lesion revascularization

References

  1. Bangalore S, Kumar S, Fusaro M, Amoroso N, Attubato MJ, Feit F, et al. Short- and long-term outcomes with drug-eluting and bare-metal coronary stents: a mixed-treatment comparison analysis of 117 762 patient-years of follow-up from randomized trials. Circulation. 2012;125:2873–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Buccheri S, Franchina G, Romano S, Puglisi S, Venuti G, D’Arrigo P, et al. Clinical outcomes following intravascular imaging-guided versus coronary angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation: a systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis of 31 studies and 17,882 patients. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:2488–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Prati F, Di Vito L, Biondi-Zoccai G, Occhipinti M, La Manna A, Tamburino C, et al. Angiography alone versus angiography plus optical coherence tomography to guide decision-making during percutaneous coronary intervention: the centro per la lotta contro l’infarto-optimisation of percutaneous coronary intervention (CLI-OPCI) study. EuroIntervention. 2012;8:823–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jones DA, Rathod KS, Koganti S, Hamshere S, Astroulakis Z, Lim P, et al. Angiography alone versus angiography plus optical coherence tomography to guide percutaneous coronary intervention: outcomes from the PAN-LONDON PCI cohort. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:1313–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Araki M, Park SJ, Dauerman HL, Uemura S, Kim JS, Di Mario C, et al. Optical coherence tomography in coronary atherosclerosis assessment and intervention. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2022;19:684–703.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Prati F, Romagnoli E, Burzotta F, Limbruno U, Gatto L, La Manna A, et al. Clinical impact of oct findings during pci: the CLI-OPCI II study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:1297–305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, Alfonso F, Banning AP, Benedetto U, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019;40:87–165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Park DY, An S, Jolly N, Attanasio S, Yadav N, Gutierrez JA et al. Comparison of intravascular ultrasound, optical coherence tomography, and conventional angiography-guided percutaneous coronary interventions: a systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2023.

  9. Holm NR, Andreasen LN, Neghabat O, Laanmets P, Kumsars I, Bennett J et al. Oct or angiography guidance for pci in complex bifurcation lesions. N Engl J Med. 2023.

  10. Ali ZA, Landmesser U, Maehara A, Matsumura M, Shlofmitz RA, Guagliumi G et al. Optical coherence tomography-guided versus angiography-guided pci. N Engl J Med. 2023.

  11. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (prisma-p) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;350:g7647.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee JM, Choi KH, Song YB, Lee JY, Lee SJ, Lee SY, et al. Intravascular imaging-guided or angiography-guided complex pci. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:1668–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fallesen CO, Antonsen L, Maehara A, Noori M, Hougaard M, Hansen KN, et al. Optical coherence tomography- versus angiography-guided magnesium bioresorbable scaffold implantation in nstemi patients. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2022;40:101–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chamie D, Costa JR Jr., Damiani LP, Siqueira D, Braga S, Costa R, et al. Optical coherence tomography versus intravascular ultrasound and angiography to guide percutaneous coronary interventions: the iSIGHT randomized trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14:e009452.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ueki Y, Yamaji K, Barbato E, Nef H, Brugaletta S, Alfonso F, et al. Randomized comparison of optical coherence tomography versus angiography to guide bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation: the OPTICO BVS study. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020;21:1244–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kala P, Cervinka P, Jakl M, Kanovsky J, Kupec A, Spacek R, et al. Oct guidance during stent implantation in primary pci: a randomized multicenter study with nine months of optical coherence tomography follow-up. Int J Cardiol. 2018;250:98–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Meneveau N, Souteyrand G, Motreff P, Caussin C, Amabile N, Ohlmann P, et al. Optical coherence tomography to optimize results of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with non-st-elevation acute coronary syndrome: results of the multicenter, randomized DOCTORS study (does optical coherence tomography optimize results of stenting). Circulation. 2016;134:906–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ali ZA, Maehara A, Genereux P, Shlofmitz RA, Fabbiocchi F, Nazif TM, et al. Optical coherence tomography compared with intravascular ultrasound and with angiography to guide coronary stent implantation (ILUMIEN III: OPTIMIZE PCI): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;388:2618–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim JS, Shin DH, Kim BK, Ko YG, Choi D, Jang Y, et al. Randomized comparison of stent strut coverage following angiography- or optical coherence tomography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2015;68:190–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Antonsen L, Thayssen P, Maehara A, Hansen HS, Junker A, Veien KT, et al. Optical coherence tomography guided percutaneous coronary intervention with nobori stent implantation in patients with non-st-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (OCTACS) trial: difference in strut coverage and dynamic malapposition patterns at 6 months. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:e002446.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Virmani R, Kolodgie FD, Burke AP, Farb A, Schwartz SM. Lessons from sudden coronary death: a comprehensive morphological classification scheme for atherosclerotic lesions. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2000;20:1262–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Niccoli G, Montone RA, Di Vito L, Gramegna M, Refaat H, Scalone G, et al. Plaque rupture and intact fibrous cap assessed by optical coherence tomography portend different outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:1377–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yonetsu T, Lee T, Murai T, Suzuki M, Matsumura A, Hashimoto Y, et al. Plaque morphologies and the clinical prognosis of acute coronary syndrome caused by lesions with intact fibrous cap diagnosed by optical coherence tomography. Int J Cardiol. 2016;203:766–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Borzillo I, De Filippo O, Manai R, Bruno F, Ravetti E, Galanti AA et al. Role of intracoronary imaging in myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary disease (MINOCA): a review. J Clin Med. 2023;12.

  26. Kurogi K, Ishii M, Ikebe S, Kaichi R, Mori T, Komaki S, et al. Optical coherence tomography-versus intravascular ultrasound-guided stent expansion in calcified lesions. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2022;37:312–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Park DY, Vemmou E, An S, Nikolakopoulos I, Regan CJ, Cambi BC, et al. Trends and impact of intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography on percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial infarction. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2023;45:101186.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Vemmou E, Nikolakopoulos I, Xenogiannis I, Karacsonyi J, Rangan BV, Garcia S, et al. Learning and innovation among interventional cardiologists: insights from an international survey. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;99:11–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2023YFC3606500) and the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province (LY21H020007).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yanwei Wang and Xi Yang contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiology, Ningbo Medical Treatment Center Lihuili Hospital, 57 Xingning Road, Ningbo, 315000, PR China

    Yanwei Wang & Xi Yang

  2. Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 79 Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, 310003, Zhejiang, PR China

    Yutao Wu & Yijiang Zhou

  3. Department of Coronary Care Unit, Ningbo Medical Treatment Center Lihuili Hospital, 57 Xingning Road, Ningbo, 315000, PR China

    Yanqin Li

Authors
  1. Yanwei Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xi Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yutao Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yanqin Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yijiang Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Yanwei Wang and Yijiang Zhou designed and supervised this work. Xi Yang, Yanqin Li and Yutao Wu performed literature research and data analysis. Yanwei Wang wrote the original manuscript. Yijiang Zhou, Xi Yang, Yutao Wu and Yanqin Li revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yijiang Zhou.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, Y., Yang, X., Wu, Y. et al. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) - versus angiography-guided strategy for percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 24, 262 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-024-03930-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-024-03930-y

Keywords

BMC Cardiovascular Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2261

Contact us