ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2026
Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography for coronary lesion assessment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate anatomical assessment of coronary lesions is fundamental to effective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Conventional two-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography (2D-QCA) is limited by projection dependency, vessel overlap, and foreshortening, leading to imprecise estimation of lesion severity. Three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography (3D-QCA), based on 3D reconstruction, provides more accurate vessel assessment than 2D analysis; however, its reported advantages remain inconsistent across studies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception to October 2025 for studies comparing 3D-QCA with 2D-QCA using validated software. Random-effects models pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk of bias was assessed using ROB-2 and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Sixteen studies were included. Compared with 2D-QCA, 3D-QCA reported significantly longer lesion length (SMD 0.29; 95% CI 0.04-0.53) and larger minimal luminal area (SMD 0.36; 95% CI 0.07-0.65). Diameter stenosis (SMD - 0.28; 95% CI - 0.48 to - 0.07) and percent stenosis (SMD - 0.57; 95% CI - 0.95 to - 0.20) were lower with 3D-QCA. No significant differences were observed for bifurcation angle, minimal luminal diameter, reference vessel diameter, or reference vessel area. Moderate-to-high heterogeneity was observed across outcomes. 3D-QCA provides more precise anatomical characterization of coronary lesions than conventional 2D-QCA, particularly for lesion length and area-based metrics, supporting its role in improving PCI planning, while further outcome-driven studies are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42579059What 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.