Munasar Ali Alsubari, Asma'a

Background The optimal imaging guidance for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in complex coronary lesions remains a matter of debate. This meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided PCI versus angiography-guided PCI. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OCT-guided PCI to angiography-guided PCI were included. Data analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4, with risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated for dichotomous outcomes using a random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. Results Eleven RCTs involving 6432 participants were included. OCT-guided PCI showed no statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality compared to angiography-guided PCI (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.51–1.01, P = 0.06, I 2 = 0%). However, OCT-guided PCI was associated with a significant reduction in cardiac death (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.30–0.90, P = 0.02, I 2 = 0%), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55–0.89, P = 0.003, I 2 = 0%), stent thrombosis (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33–0.87, P = 0.01, I 2 = 0%), and major edge dissection (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.34–0.65, P < 0.00001, I 2 = 0%). Upon stratification of studies on the basis of follow-up duration, similar results were noted. Conclusion OCT-guided PCI demonstrated significant benefits in reducing cardiac death, MACE, and procedural complications compared to angiography-guided PCI. These findings support the integration of OCT in complex PCI, although further studies are warranted to assess its impact on long-term mortality.

Background: Transradial artery access (TRA) is the favored approach for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary angiography (CAG). However, transulnar artery access (TUA) has emerged as an alternative, particularly when TRA is not feasible. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of TUA versus TRA in patients undergoing PCI and CAG. Methods: From inception to August 2025, a systematic search of electronic databases was conducted. Data were synthesized using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic. Results: Nine RCTs involving 6089 patients were included. Meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in procedural success between TUA and TRA (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.82–1.06, P = 0.28, I 2 = 99%). Similarly, puncture success rates were comparable (RR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.91–1.00, P = 0.06, I 2 = 83%). Secondary outcomes showed no significant differences in puncture attempts or hematoma incidence, but TRA was associated with a shorter procedure time (MD: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.27–1.50, P = 0.005). Conclusion: TUA provides a viable alternative to TRA, with similar success rates and complication profiles. However, TRA remains superior in terms of procedure time. Further large-scale RCTs are warranted to confirm these findings and refine clinical guidelines.