Angiography Alone Versus Angiography Plus Optical Coherence Tomography to Guide Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Outcomes From the Pan-London PCI Cohort

Daniel A. Jones, Krishnaraj S. Rathod, Sudheer Koganti, Stephen Hamshere, Zoe Astroulakis, Pitt Lim, Alexander Sirker, Constantinos O’Mahony, Ajay K. Jain, Charles J. Knight, Miles C. Dalby, Iqbal S. Malik, Anthony Mathur, Roby Rakhit, Tim Lockie, Simon Redwood, Philip A. MacCarthy, Ranil Desilva, Roshan Weerackody, Andrew WraggElliot J. Smith, Christos V. Bourantas

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

108 Citations (Scopus)


This study aimed to determine the effect on long-term survival of using optical coherence tomography (OCT) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
BackgroundAngiographic guidance for PCI has substantial limitations. The superior spatial resolution of OCT could translate into meaningful clinical benefits, although limited data exist to date about their effect on clinical endpoints.
MethodsThis was a cohort study based on the Pan-London (United Kingdom) PCI registry, which includes 123,764 patients who underwent PCI in National Health Service hospitals in London between 2005 and 2015. Patients undergoing primary PCI or pressure wire use were excluded leaving 87,166 patients in the study. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at a median of 4.8 years.
ResultsOCT was used in 1,149 (1.3%) patients, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) was used in 10,971 (12.6%) patients, and angiography alone in the remaining 75,046 patients. Overall OCT rates increased over time (p < 0.0001), with variation in rates between centers (p = 0.002). The mean stent length was shortest in the angiography-guided group, longer in the IVUS-guided group, and longest in the OCT-guided group. OCT-guided procedures were associated with greater procedural success rates and reduced in-hospital MACE rates. A significant difference in mortality was observed between patients who underwent OCT-guided PCI (7.7%) compared with patients who underwent either IVUS-guided (12.2%) or angiography-guided (15.7%; p < 0.0001) PCI, with differences seen for both elective (p < 0.0001) and acute coronary syndrome subgroups (p = 0.0024). Overall this difference persisted after multivariate Cox analysis (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26 to 0.81; p = 0.001) and propensity matching (hazard ratio: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.77; p = 0.0008; OCT vs. angiography-alone cohort), with no difference in matched OCT and IVUS cohorts (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.61 to 1.38; p = 0.43).
ConclusionsIn this large observational study, OCT-guided PCI was associated with improved procedural outcomes, in-hospital events, and long-term survival compared with standard angiography-guided PCI.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1313-1321
Number of pages9
JournalJacc-Cardiovascular Interventions
Issue number14
Early online date16 Jul 2018
Publication statusPublished - 2018


  • intravascular ultrasound
  • optical coherence tomography
  • percutaneous coronary intervention


Dive into the research topics of 'Angiography Alone Versus Angiography Plus Optical Coherence Tomography to Guide Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Outcomes From the Pan-London PCI Cohort'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this