Trial reportSaudi medical journal2015
Intravascular ultrasound-guided unprotected left main coronary artery stenting in the elderly.
Trial report in Saudi medical journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 21 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
53 citing papers in PubMed, 21 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 128 citations in OpenAlex.
- IVUS-Guided Versus Angiography-Guided PCI for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and GRADE Assessment of Randomized Trials.Clinical cardiology · 2026Pooled it
- Intravascular imaging vs. angiography alone to guide percutaneous coronary intervention in older adults: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Coronary artery disease · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of Intravascular Imaging-, Physiology-, or Angiography-Guided Approaches for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Intravascular imaging for percutaneous coronary intervention on bifurcation and unprotected left main lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Open heart · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of percutaneous coronary intervention with different guidance modalities in patients with coronary artery lesions: a network meta-analysis and systematic review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Intravascular imaging-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Intravascular Imaging-Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Intravascular Ultrasound versus Angiography Guided Drug Eluting Stent Implantation in Patients with Left Main Coronary Artery Disease - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Role of Intravascular Imaging in Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.The American journal of cardiology · 2023Pooled it
- Intravascular imaging guided versus coronary angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Pooled it
- Comparison of intravascular ultrasound, optical coherence tomography, and conventional angiography-guided percutaneous coronary interventions: A systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2023Pooled it
- Efficacy of intravascular imaging-guided drug-eluting stent implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2022Pooled it
- Clinical Outcomes Following Hemodynamic Parameter or Intravascular Imaging-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Era of Drug-Eluting Stents: An Updated Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of 28 Randomized Trials and 11,860 Patients.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Short- and Long-Term Prognosis of Intravascular Ultrasound-Versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-Analysis Involving 24,783 Patients.Journal of interventional cardiology · 2021Pooled it
- Intravascular ultrasound versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with complex coronary lesions: An updated meta-analysis of nine randomized clinical trials.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2019Pooled it
- Comparison of clinical outcomes between intravascular ultrasound-guided and angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation: A meta-analysis of randomised control trials and systematic review.International wound journal · 2019Pooled it
- Intravascular ultrasound guidance reduces cardiac death and coronary revascularization in patients undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation: results from a meta-analysis of 9 randomized trials and 4724 patients.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2019Pooled it
- Meta-analysis and systematic review of intravascular ultrasound versus angiography-guided drug eluting stent implantation in left main coronary disease in 4592 patients.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2018Pooled it
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate whether intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) could improve clinical outcomes compared with angiography-guided PCI in the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis (ULMCA) in the elderly.
methodsThis controlled study was carried out between October 2009 and September 2012, in Qinhuangdao First Hospital, Hebei Province, China. One hundred and twenty-three consecutive patients with ULMCA, aged 70 or older, were randomized to an IVUS-guided group and a control group. The occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE): death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularizations) were recorded after 2 years of follow-up.
resultsThe IVUS-guided group had a lower rate of 2-year MACE than the control group (13.1% versus 29.3%, p=0.031). The incidence of target lesion revascularization was lower in the IVUS-guided group than in the control group (9.1% versus 24%, p=0.045). However, there were no differences in death and myocardial infarction in the 2 groups. On Cox proportional hazard analysis, distal lesion was the independent predictor of MACE (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.99, confidence interval [CI]: 1.129-2.367; p=0.043); IVUS guidance was independent factor of survival free of MACE (HR: 0.414, CI: 0.129-0.867; p=0.033).
conclusionThe use of IVUS could reduce MACE in elderly patients undergoing ULMCA intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.