Intracoronary imaging in PCI for acute coronary syndrome: Insights from British Cardiovascular Intervention Society registry
- PMID: 37357105
- DOI: 10.1016/j.carrev.2023.05.020
Intracoronary imaging in PCI for acute coronary syndrome: Insights from British Cardiovascular Intervention Society registry
Abstract
Background: While previous studies have demonstrated the superiority of ICI-guided PCI over an angiography-based approach, there are limited data on all-comer ACS patients. This study aimed to identify the characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing intracoronary imaging (ICI) guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS).
Methods: All patient undergoing PCI for ACS in England and Wales between 2006 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed and stratified according to ICI utilization. The outcomes assessed were in-hospital all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) using multivariable logistic regression models.
Results: 598,921 patients underwent PCI for ACS, of which 41,716 (7.0 %) had ICI which was predominantly driven by IVUS use (5.6 %). ICI use steadily increased from 1.4 % in 2006 to 13.5 % in 2019. Adjusted odds of mortality (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.58-0.83) and MACCE (OR 0.77, 95%CI 0.73-0.83) were significantly lower in the ICI group. The association between ICI and improved outcomes varied according to vessel treated with both left main stem (LMS) and LMS/left anterior descending (LAD) PCI associated with significantly lower odds of mortality (OR 0.34, 95%CI 0.27-0.44, OR 0.51 95%CI 0.45-0.56) and MACCE (OR 0.44 95%CI 0.35-0.54, OR 0.67 95%CI 0.62-0.72) respectively.
Conclusions: Although ICI use has steadily increased, less than one in seven patients underwent ICI-guided PCI. The association between ICI use and improved in-hospital outcomes was mainly observed in PCI procedures involving LMS and LAD.
Keywords: Acute coronary syndrome; In-hospital mortality; Intracoronary imaging; Intravascular ultrasound; Optical coherence tomography.
Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of competing interest Andrew Sharp is a Consultant to Medtronic, Philips, Boston Scientific, Recor Medical, Penumbra. NIHR funds MR for his academic clinical lecturer post, and the views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health. Mamas A Mamas is in receipt of unrestricted educational grants from Abbott Vascular and Terumo. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. The data underlying this article were accessed from the BCIS PCI registry. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous
