Data regarding clinical outcomes after intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for complex coronary-artery lesions, as compared with outcomes after angiography-guided PCI, are limited. In this prospective, multicenter, open-label trial in South Korea, we randomly assigned patients with complex coronary-artery lesions in a 2:1 ratio to undergo either intravascular imaging-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. In the intravascular imaging group, the choice between intravascular ultrasonography and optical coherence tomography was at the operators' discretion. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target-vessel revascularization. Safety was also assessed. A total of 1639 patients underwent randomization, with 1092 assigned to undergo intravascular imaging-guided PCI and 547 assigned to undergo angiography-guided PCI. At a median follow-up of 2.1 years (interquartile range, 1.4 to 3.0), a primary end-point event had occurred in 76 patients (cumulative incidence, 7.7%) in the intravascular imaging group and in 60 patients (cumulative incidence, 12.3%) in the angiography group (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.45 to 0.89; P = 0.008). Death from cardiac causes occurred in 16 patients (cumulative incidence, 1.7%) in the intravascular imaging group and in 17 patients (cumulative incidence, 3.8%) in the angiography group; target-vessel-related myocardial infarction occurred in 38 (cumulative incidence, 3.7%) and 30 (cumulative incidence, 5.6%), respectively; and clinically driven target-vessel revascularization in 32 (cumulative incidence, 3.4%) and 25 (cumulative incidence, 5.5%), respectively. There were no apparent between-group differences in the incidence of procedure-related safety events. Among patients with complex coronary-artery lesions, intravascular imaging-guided PCI led to a lower risk of a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target-vessel revascularization than angiography-guided PCI. (Supported by Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific; RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03381872).

Kim MS, et al. Korean Circ J. 2017 Sep;47(5):555-643. https://doi.org/10.4070/kcj.2017.0009

Heo JH, et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2023 Aug;38(38):e295. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e295

Kim HL, et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2024 Jun;39(23):e195. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e195

BACKGROUND: The RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI (Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance Versus Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) demonstrated that intravascular imaging–guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improved clinical outcome compared with angiography-guided PCI for patients with complex coronary artery lesions. This study aims to assess whether the prognostic benefit of intravascular imaging–guided procedural optimization persists in patients undergoing PCI for left main coronary artery disease. METHODS: Of 1639 patients enrolled in the RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI, 192 patients with left main coronary artery disease were selected for the current prespecified substudy. Selected patients were randomly assigned to either the intravascular imaging–guided PCI group (n=138) or the angiography-guided PCI group (n=54). The primary end point was target vessel failure defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel–related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 2.1 years (interquartile range 1.1 to 3.0 years), intravascular imaging–guided PCI was associated with lower incidence of primary end point compared with angiography-guided PCI (6.8% versus 25.1%; hazard ratio, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.13–0.76]; P =0.010). This significant reduction in primary end point was mainly driven by a lower risk of cardiac death or spontaneous target vessel–related myocardial infarction (1.6% versus 12.7%; hazard ratio, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.03–0.82]; P =0.028). Intravascular imaging–guided PCI was independently associated with a lower risk of primary end point, even after adjusting for various clinical factors (hazard ratio, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.12–0.72]; P =0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Intravascular imaging–guided PCI showed clinical benefit over angiography-guided PCI for left main coronary artery disease in reducing the risk of cardiac death, target vessel–related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03381872.

Despite guideline recommendations, evidence for the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) monotherapy in patients with atrial fibrillation after implantation of a drug-eluting stent remains limited. In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial in South Korea, we assigned patients with atrial fibrillation who had undergone the implantation of a drug-eluting stent at least 1 year earlier in a 1:1 ratio to receive NOAC monotherapy or combination therapy (NOAC plus clopidogrel). The primary end point was net adverse clinical events, a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, systemic embolism, or major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding at 12 months. The noninferiority margin was 3.0 percentage points. A total of 960 patients underwent randomization: 482 patients to receive monotherapy and 478 to receive combination therapy. The mean age of the patients was 71.1 years, and 21.4% were women. At 12 months, a primary end-point event had occurred in 46 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 9.6%) in the monotherapy group and in 82 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 17.2%) in the combination-therapy group, for an absolute difference of -7.6 percentage points (95.2% confidence interval [CI], -11.9 to -3.3; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and a hazard ratio of 0.54 (95.2% CI, 0.37 to 0.77; P<0.001 for superiority). Major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 25 patients (5.2%) in the monotherapy group and in 63 patients (13.2%) in the combination-therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.60). Among patients with atrial fibrillation who had undergone implantation of a drug-eluting stent at least 1 year earlier, NOAC monotherapy was noninferior to combination therapy for net adverse clinical events. (Funded by Cardiovascular Research Center and Samjin Pharmaceutical; ADAPT AF-DES ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04250116.).