Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30694800›Full record

Trial reportAnatolian journal of cardiology2019

Intravascular ultrasound-guided drug-eluting stent implantation for patients with unprotected left main coronary artery lesions: A single-center randomized trial.

Xiao Ming Liu, Zuo Ming Yang, Xiao Kun Liu, Qi Zhang, Chang Qing Liu, Quan Le Han, Jian Hua Sun

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Anatolian journal of cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Article
  15. Intravascular Imaging for Facilitated Coronary Interventions in DES Era.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Optimal minimal stent area after crossover stenting in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Xiao Ming LiuDepartments of General Practice, and Cardiology, Tangshan Gongren Hospital, Hebei Medical University; Tangshan-China. StarLight_2578@163.com.
Zuo Ming Yang
Xiao Kun Liu
Qi Zhang
Chang Qing Liu
Quan Le Han
Jian Hua Sun

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIntravascular ultrasound (IVUS) has developed as a preferable choice for optimizing the stenting procedures mainly because it will have good access to vessel size, lesion length, or severity accurately. However, it still remains unclear about the benefits of IVUS guidance in drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for patients with unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes with respect to IVUS-guided DES implantation for these patients.

methodsA total of 336 consecutive patients from December 2010 to December 2015 were enrolled in the study. The patients were then randomly assigned into two groups: IVUS-guided group (n=167) and control group (n=169). The primary endpoint was the incidence of composite major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). The risk of stent thrombosis (ST) was chosen as the safety endpoint.

resultsAfter a 1-year follow-up, the occurrence of composite MACE in the IVUS-guided group was significantly lower than that in the control group (13.2% vs. 21.9%, p=0.031), which might mainly result from the significant reduction in the risk of cardiac death (1.8% vs. 5.9%, p=0.048). Dramatically, the risk of MI did not differ significantly between the two groups (11.4% vs. 13.6%, p=0.478), though a tended reduction in TVR was observed under IVUS guidance (4.2% vs. 8.9%, p=0.068). There was no statistical significance between the two groups with respect to the risk of target lesion revascularization (IVUS-guided vs. control: 1.2% vs. 3.0%, p=0.239) and ST (IVUS-guided vs. control: 1.2% vs. 3.0%, p=0.246).

conclusionThe possible feasibility of IVUS-guided DES implantation for patients with ULMCA stenosis was supported by the present study. Larger and more powerful randomized trials were still warranted to research the whole benefits of IVUS guidance for these patients.

Indexed as

Coronary VesselsDrug-Eluting StentsAgedChinaCoronary StenosisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurvival AnalysisTreatment OutcomeUltrasonography, Interventional

Identifiers

PMID30694800
PMCPMC6457420

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.