ArticleHeart and vessels2021
Three-dimensional optical coherence tomography versus intravascular ultrasound in percutaneous coronary intervention for the left main coronary artery.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intravascular Imaging Guidance for Left Main Interventions: The Emerging Role of Optical Coherence Tomography.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Assessing the efficacy of saline flush in frequency-domain optical coherence tomography for intracoronary imaging.Heart and vessels · 2024Article
- Imaging of Left Main Coronary Artery; Untangling the Gordian Knot.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to compare the intravascular imaging findings, and clinical outcomes between three-dimensional optical coherence tomography (OCT)- and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the left main coronary artery (LMCA). We enrolled 331 patients underwent OCT- or IVUS-guide single crossover stenting across the side branch (SB) and subsequent kissing balloon inflation (KBT) for LMCA bifurcation. Primary endpoint was defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Of 331 patients, 58 patients (17.5%) underwent OCT-guide PCI. OCT-guide PCI associated with higher frequency of proximal optimization technique (POT) (98.3% vs 85.3%, P = 0.013) and smaller balloon size of POT (4.29 ± 0.44 mm vs 4.43 ± 0.42, P = 0.02) than IVUS-guide PCI. Although maximal stent area at LMCA and minimal stent area at main vessel were significantly smaller in OCT-guide PCI in intravascular imaging (P = 0.01, and P = 0.002, respectively), the restenosis rate at follow-up angiography was comparable in both groups (15.2% vs. 9.4%, P = 0.387). Cumulative rate of primary endpoint was not significantly different between 2 groups both before and after propensity score adjustment (7.0% vs. 7.4%, P = 0.98 and 2.6% vs. 7.3%, P = 0.18). In conclusion, the clinical outcomes at 1 year were comparable, suggesting OCT- and IVUS-guided PCI for LMCA were similarly feasible. The balloon size of POT in OCT-guide PCI might be influenced by the limited visibility in the proximal LMCA.
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.