Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32075491›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Heart Association2020

Intravascular Ultrasound Imaging-Guided Versus Coronary Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Fahed Darmoch, M Chadi Alraies, Yasser Al-Khadra, Homam Moussa Pacha, Duane S Pinto, Eric A Osborn

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07512778 (Clinical Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound-guided vs. Angiography-guided Coronary Stenting in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome), which is not on this map. Cited by 79 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 10 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.

NCT07512778 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Clinical Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound-guided vs. Angiography-guided Coronary Stenting in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: Multicenter, Randomized Control Trial (SAINT-IVUS)

TypeinterventionalSponsorSUK MIN SEORan2025 to 2031Enrolled1,500ConditionsAcute Coronary Syndromes (ACS)ArmsIVUS-guided PCI, Angiography-guided PCI
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

79 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. The Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound Use on 1-Year Outcomes After Infrapopliteal Endovascular Intervention.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025
    Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Fahed DarmochBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center/Harvard School of Medicine Boston MA.
M Chadi AlraiesDetroit Medical Center Wayne State University Detroit MI.
Yasser Al-KhadraCleveland Clinic Cleveland OH.
Homam Moussa PachaMedStar Washington Hospital Center Washington DC.
Duane S PintoBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center/Harvard School of Medicine Boston MA.
Eric A OsbornBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center/Harvard School of Medicine Boston MA.

Funding

Intravascular Molecular-Structural Imaging of Coronary Stent PathobiologyK08HL130465 · NHLBI · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI OSBORN, ERIC A · 2017 to 2020
$658k
NHLBI NIH HHS K08 HL130465
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) offers tomographic images of the coronary vessels, allowing optimization of stent implantation at the time of PCI. However, the long-term beneficial effect of IVUS over PCI guided by coronary angiography (CA) alone remains under question. We sought to investigate the outcomes of IVUS-guided compared with CA-guided PCI. Methods and Results We performed a comprehensive search of PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Central Register, looking for randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared PCI outcomes of IVUS with CA. Data were aggregated for the primary outcome measure using the random-effects model as pooled risk ratio (RR). The primary outcomes were the rate of cardiovascular death, need for target lesion revascularization, occurrence of myocardial infarction, and rate of stent thrombosis. A total of 19 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 27 610 patients divided into IVUS (n=11 513) and CA (n=16 097). Compared with standard CA-guided PCI, we found that the risks of cardiovascular death (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.54-0.73), myocardial infarction (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.86), target lesion revascularization (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70-0.94), and stent thrombosis (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41-0.79) were all significantly lower using IVUS guidance. Conclusions Compared with standard CA-guided PCI, the use of IVUS imaging guidance to optimize stent implantation is associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular death and major adverse events, such as myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis.

Indexed as

Coronary AngiographyPercutaneous Coronary InterventionUltrasonography, InterventionalAgedCoronary Artery DiseaseFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedObservational Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk FactorsStentsTreatment Outcomecoronary imagingcoronary interventionintravascular ultrasoundoptical coherence tomography

Identifiers

PMID32075491
PMCPMC7335557

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.