ArticleHeliyon2025
Dynamic coronary roadmap-guided PCI reduces contrast volume and radiation time compared to standard angiography PCI: A meta-analysis.
Article in Heliyon, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dynamic Coronary Roadmap (DCR) is a new PCI method that may reduce contrast dose and contrast-associated acute kidney injury (CA-AKI) risk. This paper evaluates DCR-guided PCI versus standard angiography PCI for contrast usage, procedure time, and CA-AKI risk. Methods: On May 1, 2024, we searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov for clinical trials or observational studies comparing DCR-guided PCI to standard angiography PCI. Outcomes were contrast media usage, radiation time, dose-area product, air kerma, radiation dose, post-PCI eGFR, AKI incidence, and procedure success. We used a random-effects model and analyzed outcomes using standardized mean difference (SMD) and odds ratio (OR). Results: Out of 1679 screened articles, only 5 were eligible, encompassing 941 patients. Findings show DCR-guided PCI significantly reduces contrast volume (SMD = -1.12, 95 % CI: 1.75 to -0.50, p = 0.0004), dose-area product (SMD = -0.71, 95 % CI: 1.25 to -0.17, p = 0.01), air kerma (SMD = -1.62, 95 % CI: 2.70 to -0.54), and radiation time (SMD = -0.75, 95 % CI: 1.32 to -0.18, p = 0.003) compared to standard angiography PCI. Despite lower incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) in the DCR-guided PCI group, the odds ratio did not show statistical significance. Post-PCI eGFR also did not differ significantly between the two groups. Procedural success rates were similar, both exceeding 99 %. Conclusions: In this paper, we found that DCR-guided PCI is superior to conventional PCI in terms of contrast medium volume and radiation time. Future randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm these findings, especially in patients with kidney disease.
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.