Optical Coherence Tomography–Guided or Intravascular Ultrasound–Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The OCTIVUS Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Intravascular imaging–guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT) showed superior clinical outcomes compared with angiography-guided PCI. However, the comparative effectiveness of OCT-guided and IVUS-guided PCI regarding clinical outcomes is unknown. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, open-label, pragmatic trial, we randomly assigned 2008 patients with significant coronary artery lesions undergoing PCI in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either an OCT-guided or IVUS-guided PCI. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiac causes, target vessel–related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization at 1 year, which was powered for noninferiority of the OCT group compared with the IVUS group. Safety outcomes were also assessed. RESULTS: At 1 year, primary end point events occurred in 25 of 1005 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 2.5%) in the OCT group and in 31 of 1003 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 3.1%) in the IVUS group (absolute difference, −0.6 percentage points; upper boundary of one-sided 97.5% CI, 0.97 percentage points; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy was similar (14 patients [1.4%] in the OCT group versus 15 patients [1.5%] in the IVUS group; P=0.85). The incidence of major procedural complications was lower in the OCT group than in the IVUS group (22 [2.2%] versus 37 [3.7%]; P=0.047), although imaging procedure-related complications were not observed. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with significant coronary artery lesions, OCT-guided PCI was noninferior to IVUS-guided PCI with respect to the incidence of a composite of death from cardiac causes, target vessel–related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization at 1 year. The selected study population and lower-than-expected event rates should be considered in interpreting the trial.