ArticleAnnals of vascular surgery2025
Use of Intravascular Ultrasound during Peripheral Vascular Interventions for Claudication Is Not Associated with Improved Outcomes.
Article in Annals of vascular surgery, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe efficacy of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) for improving outcomes of peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs) has not been well studied. We aimed to evaluate the association of IVUS with long-term outcomes in patients undergoing PVI for claudication.
methodsWe conducted a two-cohort study using data from 100% of Medicare fee-for-service claims (2018-2022) and the Vascular Quality Initiative Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network (VISION; 2016-2019). For both cohorts, we identified all patients who underwent an index (first-time) femoropopliteal PVI for claudication, excluding patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and acute limb ischemia. We compared IVUS use over time and by procedure type and setting. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards models to assess the associations of IVUS with repeat PVI, conversion to CLTI, and amputation. For the Medicare cohort, adjustments were made for baseline patient characteristics, while for the VISION cohort, additional adjustments were made for detailed anatomic factors. All models were clustered by physician.
resultsIn the Medicare dataset, 69,092 patients (median age 74 years; 40.5% female; 12.1% non-Hispanic Black) underwent an index femoropopliteal PVI for claudication, of whom 22.1% (N = 15,253) received IVUS. In the VISION dataset, 6,722 patients (median age 72 years; 38.7% female; 11.6% non-Hispanic Black) underwent an index femoropopliteal PVI for claudication, of whom 3.8% (N = 254) received IVUS. The mean follow-up time for both cohorts was 2.7 years. For both the Medicare and VISION cohorts, IVUS use significantly increased over time, particularly in ambulatory surgery center/office-based laboratory settings and in conjunction with atherectomy procedures (P < 0.001). In the Medicare cohort, IVUS use was associated with a higher hazard of repeat PVI (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.12) and progression to CLTI (aHR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03-1.20) after adjustment compared to PVI without IVUS. In the VISION cohort, there were no significant differences in outcomes between IVUS and non-IVUS cases (all, P > 0.05).
conclusionThe use of IVUS for the treatment of claudication is rapidly increasing, without clear benefits in outcomes. The role of IVUS in treating claudication deserves further investigation.
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.