Objective: Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is considered superior to coronary angiography (CA). However, OCT is not widely used, and data are limited in India. In the present study, the efficacy and safety of OCT for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in all-comer patients were evaluated and compared with those of CA. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, the data associated with 434 patients who underwent PCI between December 2018 and June 2020 were analyzed. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 6 months. Results: The patients were divided into OCT-guided and angiography-guided PCI groups (217 in each group) after propensity matching. The OCT-guided PCI group had a significantly larger proportion of patients with unstable angina (55.7% vs. 43.3%, p=0.009) and non-STelevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI; 17.5% vs. 10.0%, p=0.02) compared with the angiography-guided PCI group, and the proportion of patients with STEMI was significantly lower in the OCT-guided PCI group than in the angiography-guided PCI group (23.5% vs. 41.5%, p=0.00005). The OCT-guided PCI group had a lower incidence of MACEs at 6 months than the angiography-guided PCI group but without statistical significance (6.9% vs. 9.7%, p=0.296).Incidences of target lesion failure, target vessel myocardial infarction, in-stent restenosis, or stent thrombosis did not occur in either group. On post-PCI OCT, stent underexpansion, tissue prolapse, stent edge dissection, and stent malapposition were observed in 28.5%, 10%, 4.1%, and 3.7% of the cases, respectively. Conclusion When comparing OCT-guided PCI with angiography-guided PCI, OCT-guided PCI showed slightly superior clinical outcomes at 6 months, although the differences were not statistically significant.

Objective: Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is considered superior to coronary angiography (CA). However, OCT is not widely used, and data are limited in India. In the present study, the efficacy and safety of OCT for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in all-comer patients were evaluated and compared with those of CA. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, the data associated with 434 patients who underwent PCI between December 2018 and June 2020 were analyzed. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 6 months. Results: The patients were divided into OCT-guided and angiography-guided PCI groups (217 in each group) after propensity matching. The OCT-guided PCI group had a significantly larger proportion of patients with unstable angina (55.7% vs. 43.3%, p=0.009) and non-STelevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI; 17.5% vs. 10.0%, p=0.02) compared with the angiography-guided PCI group, and the proportion of patients with STEMI was significantly lower in the OCT-guided PCI group than in the angiography-guided PCI group (23.5% vs. 41.5%, p=0.00005). The OCT-guided PCI group had a lower incidence of MACEs at 6 months than the angiography-guided PCI group but without statistical significance (6.9% vs. 9.7%, p=0.296).Incidences of target lesion failure, target vessel myocardial infarction, in-stent restenosis, or stent thrombosis did not occur in either group. On post-PCI OCT, stent underexpansion, tissue prolapse, stent edge dissection, and stent malapposition were observed in 28.5%, 10%, 4.1%, and 3.7% of the cases, respectively. Conclusion When comparing OCT-guided PCI with angiography-guided PCI, OCT-guided PCI showed slightly superior clinical outcomes at 6 months, although the differences were not statistically significant.

Objective: Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is considered superior to coronary angiography (CA). However, OCT is not widely used, and data are limited in India. In the present study, the efficacy and safety of OCT for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in all-comer patients were evaluated and compared with those of CA. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, the data associated with 434 patients who underwent PCI between December 2018 and June 2020 were analyzed. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 6 months. Results: The patients were divided into OCT-guided and angiography-guided PCI groups (217 in each group) after propensity matching. The OCT-guided PCI group had a significantly larger proportion of patients with unstable angina (55.7% vs. 43.3%, p=0.009) and non-STelevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI; 17.5% vs. 10.0%, p=0.02) compared with the angiography-guided PCI group, and the proportion of patients with STEMI was significantly lower in the OCT-guided PCI group than in the angiography-guided PCI group (23.5% vs. 41.5%, p=0.00005). The OCT-guided PCI group had a lower incidence of MACEs at 6 months than the angiography-guided PCI group but without statistical significance (6.9% vs. 9.7%, p=0.296).Incidences of target lesion failure, target vessel myocardial infarction, in-stent restenosis, or stent thrombosis did not occur in either group. On post-PCI OCT, stent underexpansion, tissue prolapse, stent edge dissection, and stent malapposition were observed in 28.5%, 10%, 4.1%, and 3.7% of the cases, respectively. Conclusion When comparing OCT-guided PCI with angiography-guided PCI, OCT-guided PCI showed slightly superior clinical outcomes at 6 months, although the differences were not statistically significant.

Objective: Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is considered superior to coronary angiography (CA). However, OCT is not widely used, and data are limited in India. In the present study, the efficacy and safety of OCT for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in all-comer patients were evaluated and compared with those of CA. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, the data associated with 434 patients who underwent PCI between December 2018 and June 2020 were analyzed. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 6 months. Results: The patients were divided into OCT-guided and angiography-guided PCI groups (217 in each group) after propensity matching. The OCT-guided PCI group had a significantly larger proportion of patients with unstable angina (55.7% vs. 43.3%, p=0.009) and non-STelevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI; 17.5% vs. 10.0%, p=0.02) compared with the angiography-guided PCI group, and the proportion of patients with STEMI was significantly lower in the OCT-guided PCI group than in the angiography-guided PCI group (23.5% vs. 41.5%, p=0.00005). The OCT-guided PCI group had a lower incidence of MACEs at 6 months than the angiography-guided PCI group but without statistical significance (6.9% vs. 9.7%, p=0.296).Incidences of target lesion failure, target vessel myocardial infarction, in-stent restenosis, or stent thrombosis did not occur in either group. On post-PCI OCT, stent underexpansion, tissue prolapse, stent edge dissection, and stent malapposition were observed in 28.5%, 10%, 4.1%, and 3.7% of the cases, respectively. Conclusion When comparing OCT-guided PCI with angiography-guided PCI, OCT-guided PCI showed slightly superior clinical outcomes at 6 months, although the differences were not statistically significant.