ReviewJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2022
Comparison of Six Different Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Guidance Modalities.
Review in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Small Blood Vessel Diameter with Intravascular Ultrasound and Coronary Angiography for Guidance of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparison of Fractional Flow Reserve with Resting Non-Hyperemic Indices in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNew randomized trials and modalities in guiding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have become available.
objectiveWe aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of coronary angiography (CAG), intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), optical coherence tomography (OCT), fractional flow reserve (FFR), instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), and optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI)-guided PCI.
methodsA network meta-analysis was performed to compare different PCI guidance modalities. The clinical outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel/lesion revascularization (TVR/TLR). Odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% credible interval (CrI) were calculated.
resultsThirty-six randomized trials, including 19,042 patients, were included. In comparison with CAG, IVUS significantly reduced MACE (OR: 0.71; 95% CrI: 0.57 to 0.86) and TVR/TLR (OR: 0.53; 95% CrI: 0.43 to 0.66). MACE (OR: 1.44; 95% CrI: 1.02 to 2.08) and TVR/TLR (OR: 1.87; 95% CrI: 1.04 to 3.71) were significantly increased in the FFR group, compared with IVUS group. There were no significant differences in MACE or TVR/TLR among the left guidance modality comparisons. Differences in all-cause death or MI were not observed in any comparisons.
conclusionsIVUS could reduce MACE and TVR/TLR, compared with CAG or FFR. Therefore, IVUS may be the optimal modality in guiding PCI.
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.