ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Optical coherence tomography-guided
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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.
- Cost-effectiveness of optical coherence tomography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with complex coronary artery lesions in China: a markov model-based study.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The superiority of optical coherence tomography (OCT) guidance over coronary angiography (CA) guidance in optimizing therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains uncertain. Consequently, we conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis with the objective of providing a higher level of evidence. Methods: The databases of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched in March 2024. The outcomes of this meta-analysis included all-cause death, cardiovascular death, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), restenosis, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), post-intervention minimum stent area (MSA), post-intervention minimum lumen diameter (MLD), and follow-up MLD. Statistical analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 and STATA version 18. The degree of heterogeneity was evaluated using the I Results: A total of 25 articles were included in the study. In terms of clinical outcomes, OCT-guided PCI was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause death (RR =0.62; 95% CI: 0.47-0.83; P=0.001), cardiovascular death (RR =0.47; 95% CI: 0.32-0.69; P<0.0001), and MACE (RR =0.65; 95% CI: 0.54-0.77; P<0.00001). Meanwhile, no statistically significant differences were observed for restenosis (RR =0.91; 95% CI: 0.73-1.13; P=0.38), MI (RR =0.83; 95% CI: 0.69-1.00; P=0.05), TLR (RR =0.86; 95% CI: 0.66-1.10; P=0.23), and TVR (RR =0.82; 95% CI: 0.63-1.07; P=0.15). In terms of surrogate endpoints, OCT-guided PCI was associated with a significant enhancement of MSA (MD =0.30; 95% CI: 0.04-0.56; P=0.03) and MLD at follow-up (MD =0.12; 95% CI: 0.02-0.22; P=0.02). Nevertheless, no significant increase in the post-intervention MLD was observed (MD =0.04; 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.10; P=0.19). Conclusions: Compared with CA, the use of OCT for PCI guidance may be an effective strategy to optimize treatment.
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.