Intracoronary Imaging for Changing Therapeutic Decisions in Patients with Multivascular Coronary Artery Disease

TL;DR

This study shows that combining optical coherence tomography with fractional flow reserve improves decision-making in coronary artery disease treatment.

Contribution

The study demonstrates that OCT significantly changes therapeutic decisions by identifying vulnerable plaques missed by FFR alone.

Findings

OCT altered therapeutic decisions in 11 cases where FFR was above 0.8 but vulnerable plaques were present.

The FFR + OCT group had significantly more stenting decisions compared to the FFR-only group.

Intracoronary imaging helps identify and treat vulnerable lesions, potentially improving patient outcomes.

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Atherosclerotic disease is a major contributor to heart failure, stroke, and myocardial infarction, significantly lowering the quality of life and life expectancy and placing a significant burden on healthcare. Not all lesions deemed non-significant are benign, and conversely, not all significant lesions are causative of ischemia. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) provides a functional assessment of coronary lesions, while optical coherence tomography (OCT) offers detailed imaging of plaque morphology, aiding in therapeutic decision-making. The objective of this study was to evaluate the utility of OCT and FFR as adjunctive tools in the catheterization laboratory for guiding therapeutic decisions in patients with multivessel disease for non-culprit vessels. Specifically, we aimed to assess how OCT and FFR influence therapeutic decision-making in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Materials and Methods: A total of 36 patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel disease were randomized 1:1 into two groups: one guided by FFR alone and the other by a combination of FFR and OCT. For the FFR group, revascularization decisions for non-culprit lesions were based solely on FFR measurements. If the FFR was >0.8, the procedure was concluded, and the patient received maximal medical treatment. If the FFR was ≤0.8, a stent was placed. For the FFR + OCT group, if the FFR was >0.8, the revascularization decision was based on OCT findings. If there were no vulnerable plaques (VP), the procedure was concluded, and the patient received maximal medical treatment. If OCT imaging indicated VP, then the patient underwent revascularization. If the FFR was ≤0.8, the patient underwent revascularization regardless of OCT findings. Results: OCT imaging altered the therapeutic decision in 11 cases where FFR measurements were above 0.8, but the lesions were characterized as VP. Analyzing the total change in the decision to stent, 4 cases in the FFR group and 15 cases in the FFR and OCT groups (4 based on FFR and 11 on OCT) revealed a statistically significant difference (p = 0.0006; Relative Risk = 0.2556; 95% CI: 0.1013 to 0.5603). When analyzing the change in the total decision both to stent and not to stent, we observed a statistically significant difference, with Group 1 having 7 cases and Group 2 having 15 cases (p = 0.0153; Relative Risk = 0.4050; 95% CI: 0.2004 to 0.7698. Conclusions: Based on the findings of this study, OCT significantly increases the percentage of stenting procedures by identifying vulnerable lesions. The use of intracoronary imaging facilitates the timely identification and treatment of these vulnerable lesions. This underscores the crucial role of OCT in enhancing the precision of coronary interventions by ensuring timely intervention for vulnerable lesions, thereby potentially improving patient outcomes.

Figures