Saylik, FaysalHayiroglu, Mert IlkerAkbulut, TayyarCinar, Tufan2025-05-102025-05-1020240003-31971940-157410.1177/00033197231198674https://doi.org/10.1177/00033197231198674https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14720/9669Cinar, Tufan/0000-0001-8188-5020; Hayiroglu, Mert/0000-0001-6515-7349Intravascular ultrasonography (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) guided percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) are alternative techniques to angiography-guided (ANG-g) PCI in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), especially for optimal stent deployment in coronary arteries. We conducted a network meta-analysis including studies comparing those three techniques. We searched databases for studies that compared IVUS, OCT, and ANG-g PCI in patients with CAD. Overall, 52 studies with 231,137 patients were included in this meta-analysis. ANG-g PCI had higher major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), all-cause death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and stent thrombosis (ST) than IVUS-guided PCI. Of note, both OCT-guided and IVUS-guided PCI had similar outcomes. The frequency of MACEs, cardiac death, and MI were higher in ANG-g PCI than in OCT-guided PCI. The highest benefit was established with OCT for MACEs (P-score=.973), MI (P-score=.823), and cardiac death (P-score=.921) and with IVUS for all-cause death (P-score=.792), TLR (P -score=.865), and ST (P-score=.930). This network meta-analysis indicated that using OCT or IVUS for optimal stent implantation provides better outcomes in comparison with ANG-g in patients with CAD undergoing PCI.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessNetwork Meta-AnalysisPercutaneous Coronary InterventionCoronary AngiographyIntravascular UltrasoundOptical Coherence TomographyArticle759Q3Q280981937644871WOS:001062080300001