|First Author/Study (Ref. #)||N||Study Design||Endpoints and Findings|
|Habara, et al. (40)||70 (OCT vs. IVUS)||Randomized; superiority of IVUS vs. OCT|
|CLI-OPCI (38)||670 (OCT vs. angio)||Retrospective; not matched|
|OPINION (41)||829 (OCT vs. IVUS)||Randomized; noninferiority of OCT|
|ILUMIEN III (5)||450 (OCT vs. IVUS vs. angiography)||Randomized; noninferiority of OCT vs. IVUS, superiority of OCT vs. angiography|
|DOCTORS (39)||240 (OCT vs. angiography)||Randomized; superiority of OCT|
DOCTORS = Does Optical Coherence Tomography Optimize Results of Stenting; EEL = external elastic lamina; FFR = fractional flow reserve; ILUMIEN = Observational Study of Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) in Patients Undergoing Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; OPINION = Optical Frequency Domain Imaging vs. Intravascular Ultrasound in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; other abbreviations as in Tables 1 and 2.