ReviewCureus2024
Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This meta-analysis evaluated the clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). A comprehensive literature search was conducted across major electronic databases, identifying relevant studies published up to August 15, 2024. Thirteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria, comparing IVUS-guided and angiography-guided PCI. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and stent thrombosis, while secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction, and revascularization rates. Pooled analysis revealed that IVUS-guided PCI significantly reduced the risk of MACE (risk ratio (RR): 0.63, 95% CI: 0.50-0.79) and stent thrombosis (RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.30-0.90) compared to angiography-guided PCI. Secondary outcomes also favored IVUS guidance, with significant reductions in cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). While a trend towards reduced all-cause mortality was observed with IVUS guidance, it did not reach statistical significance. Notably, low heterogeneity across studies strengthened the reliability of these findings. Meta-regression analysis indicated that the presence of myocardial infarction did not significantly moderate the effect of IVUS on clinical outcomes, suggesting consistent benefits across patient subgroups. These results highlight the potential of IVUS-guided PCI to improve cardiovascular outcomes and reduce the need for repeat procedures. The findings support the growing body of evidence favoring IVUS use in PCI, particularly in complex lesions and high-risk patients. However, considerations such as cost-effectiveness and the need for specialized training remain important factors in the widespread adoption of IVUS-guided PCI in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.