Comparison between Imaging and Physiology in Guiding Coronary Revascularization: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a widely used revascularization strategy for coronary artery disease. The choice between imaging-guided and physiology-guided PCI has been a subject of debate. This meta-analysis aims to systematically compare outcomes between imaging and physiology-guided PCI and management of intermediate coronary lesions (ICLs). Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across major databases for studies published up to December 2023 following PRISMA guidelines. Seven eligible studies comparing imaging-guided and physiology-guided PCI were selected for the final analysis. Relevant outcome measures included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), target vessel revascularization (TVR), target vessel failure (TVF), and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Subgroup analysis was performed for ICLs. Results: A total of 5701 patients were included in the meta-analysis. After a mean follow-up of 2.1 years, imaging-guided PCI was associated with lower rates of TVR compared to physiology-guided PCI (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52–0.95, p = 0.02); concerning MACE, TVF, and TLR, no differences were found. When the analysis was restricted to studies considering ICLs management, there were no differences between the two techniques. Meta regression analysis did not show any impact of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) presentation on MACE and TVR. Conclusions: The findings suggest that imaging-guided PCI may reduce the need for future revascularization of the target vessel compared to the functional-guided approach, and this result was not influenced by ACS presentation. These results may have important implications for clinical practice, guiding interventional cardiologists in selecting the most appropriate guidance strategy.