SynthesisCoronary artery disease2026
Intravascular imaging vs. angiography alone to guide percutaneous coronary intervention in older adults: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Coronary artery disease, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOlder adults undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) face unique challenges due to complex anatomy and comorbidities. Intravascular imaging [including intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT)] has been shown to improve PCI outcomes, but its benefits in older adults are less well established. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare intravascular imaging with angiography alone to guide PCI in older adults.
methodsCochrane, PubMed, and Scopus were searched for RCTs comparing intravascular imaging (IVUS or OCT) vs. angiography alone in adults aged ≥65 years. The outcome of interest was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at the longest follow-up, as defined by each trial. Subgroup analyses were performed based on intravascular imaging modality, age group, and lesion complexity. Data were pooled using random-effects models, and heterogeneity was assessed using Higgins' I ² statistic.
resultsNine RCTs ( n = 7164, intravascular imaging = 3703, angiography alone = 3461) met the inclusion criteria. Intravascular imaging significantly reduced MACE compared with angiography alone [relative risk (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56-0.77; P < 0.001; I ² = 0%]. IVUS demonstrated superiority over angiography alone (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43-0.72; P < 0.001; I ² = 0%), while OCT demonstrated only a trend toward MACE reduction (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62-1.02). Subgroup analyses indicated consistent benefits with intravascular imaging for adults aged ≥65 and ≥70 years, respectively, and among those with complex coronary lesions (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.53-0.79; P < 0.001).
conclusionIntravascular imaging guidance, especially IVUS, reduces MACE in older adults undergoing PCI compared with angiography alone.
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.