Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Intravascular Imaging-Guided or Angiography-Guided Complex PCI

  • Joo Myung Lee
  • , Ki Hong Choi
  • , Young Bin Song
  • , Jong Young Lee
  • , Seung Jae Lee
  • , Sang Yeub Lee
  • , Sang Min Kim
  • , Kyeong Ho Yun
  • , Jae Young Cho
  • , Chan Joon Kim
  • , Hyo Suk Ahn
  • , Chang Wook Nam
  • , Hyuck Jun Yoon
  • , Yong Hwan Park
  • , Wang Soo Lee
  • , Jin Ok Jeong
  • , Pil Sang Song
  • , Joon Hyung Doh
  • , Sang Ho Jo
  • , Chang Hwan Yoon
  • Min Gyu Kang, Jin Sin Koh, Kwan Yong Lee, Young Hyo Lim, Yun Hyeong Cho, Jin Man Cho, Woo Jin Jang, Kook Jin Chun, David Hong, Taek Kyu Park, Jeong Hoon Yang, Seung Hyuk Choi, Hyeon Cheol Gwon, Joo Yong Hahn
  • Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan university
  • Kangbuk Samsung Hospital
  • Chungbuk National University
  • Chung-Ang University
  • Wonkwang University
  • Keimyung University
  • Samsung Changwon Hospital
  • Chungnam National University
  • Inje University
  • Hallym University
  • Seoul National University
  • Gyeongsang National University
  • Hanyang University
  • Myeongji Hospital
  • Kyung Hee University
  • Ewha Womans University
  • Pusan National University

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

427 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background Data regarding clinical outcomes after intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for complex coronary-artery lesions, as compared with outcomes after angiography-guided PCI, are limited. Methods In this prospective, multicenter, open-label trial in South Korea, we randomly assigned patients with complex coronary-artery lesions in a 2:1 ratio to undergo either intravascular imaging-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. In the intravascular imaging group, the choice between intravascular ultrasonography and optical coherence tomography was at the operators' discretion. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target-vessel revascularization. Safety was also assessed. Results A total of 1639 patients underwent randomization, with 1092 assigned to undergo intravascular imaging-guided PCI and 547 assigned to undergo angiography-guided PCI. At a median follow-up of 2.1 years (interquartile range, 1.4 to 3.0), a primary end-point event had occurred in 76 patients (cumulative incidence, 7.7%) in the intravascular imaging group and in 60 patients (cumulative incidence, 12.3%) in the angiography group (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.45 to 0.89; P=0.008). Death from cardiac causes occurred in 16 patients (cumulative incidence, 1.7%) in the intravascular imaging group and in 17 patients (cumulative incidence, 3.8%) in the angiography group; target-vessel-related myocardial infarction occurred in 38 (cumulative incidence, 3.7%) and 30 (cumulative incidence, 5.6%), respectively; and clinically driven target-vessel revascularization in 32 (cumulative incidence, 3.4%) and 25 (cumulative incidence, 5.5%), respectively. There were no apparent between-group differences in the incidence of procedure-related safety events. Conclusions Among patients with complex coronary-artery lesions, intravascular imaging-guided PCI led to a lower risk of a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target-vessel revascularization than angiography-guided PCI. (Supported by Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific; RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03381872).

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1668-1679
Number of pages12
JournalNew England Journal of Medicine
Volume388
Issue number18
DOIs
StatePublished - 2023

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.

Keywords

  • Cardiology
  • Cardiology General
  • Coronary Disease/Myocardial Infarction

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Intravascular Imaging-Guided or Angiography-Guided Complex PCI'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this