BACKGROUND - The most important predictor of adverse outcomes (thrombosis and restenosis) after stent implantation with IVUS guidance is the degree of stent expansion achieved.

METHODS - We compared the relative degree of stent expansion (defined as the minimal stent area divided by the mean of the proximal and distal reference lumen areas) after OCT-guided stenting in patients in the ILUMIEN(Observational Study of Optical Coherence Tomography [OCT] in Patients Undergoing Fractional Flow Reserve [FFR] and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) (N = 354) and IVUS-guided stenting in patients in the ADAPT-DES (Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents) study (N = 586). Stent expansion was examined in all 940 patients in a covariate-adjusted analysis as well as in 286 propensity-matched pairs (total N = 572).

RESULTS - In the matched-pair analysis, the degree of stent expansion was not significantly different between OCT and IVUS guidance (median [first, third quartiles] = 72.8% [63.3, 81.3] vs. 70.6% [62.3, 78.8], respectively, p = 0.29). Similarly, after adjustment for baseline differences in the entire population, the degree of stent expansion was also not different between the 2 imaging modalities (p = 0.84). Although a higher prevalence of post-PCI stent malapposition, tissue protrusion, and edge dissections was detected by OCT, the rates of major malapposition, tissue protrusion, and dissections were similar after OCT- and IVUS-guided stenting.

CONCLUSIONS - In the present post-hoc analysis of 2 prospective studies, OCT and IVUS guidance resulted in a comparable degree of stent expansion. Randomized trials are warranted to compare the outcomes of OCT- and IVUS-guided coronary stent implantation.

Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.