ReviewInterventional cardiology (London, England)2025
Percutaneous Coronary Interventions for Calcified Lesions: A Systematic Review with Meta-analyses of Randomised Trials.
Review in Interventional cardiology (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Are Coronary Calcium-Modifying Techniques Levelling the Playfield?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Comparative Performance of Calcium-Modification Strategies for Coronary Lesions: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.Cardiovascular therapeutics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Coronary arterial calcification impedes safe and predictable percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and guidelines recommend calcium modification. Several interventional techniques exist, but the most optimal technique remains unclear. The aim of this study was therefore to assess the effects of PCI strategies for calcified lesions on all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised trials was conducted to compare any lesion preparation or stenting technique in patients undergoing PCI for moderately or severely calcified coronary lesions according to a published protocol. CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and other sources were searched up to 8 May 2025. Results: Out of 7,172 identified records, 31 eligible trials (8,453 participants) assessed 16 lesion preparation techniques (4,392 participants) and five stenting/scaffold techniques (4,061 participants). Lesion preparation comparisons were generally underpowered, and all showed no effect on all-cause mortality or serious adverse events. For stenting strategies, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis showed that an effect of stent polymer coating (bioresorbable, permanent or polymer-free) on all-cause mortality or serious adverse events could be rejected. Conclusion: For patients undergoing PCI for moderately or severely calcified coronary lesions, there appears to be no significant differences between lesion preparation techniques regarding all-cause mortality or serious adverse events. Current evidence is underpowered and of low certainty, highlighting the clinical equipoise between available calcium modification techniques and the necessity for adequately powered randomised trials.
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.