Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37524839›Full record

SynthesisClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2024

Optical coherence tomography-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis.

S Macherey-Meyer, M M Meertens, S Heyne, S Braumann, T Tichelbäcker, H Wienemann, V Mauri, S Baldus, C Adler, S Lee

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Five-year follow-up of OCT-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2024
    Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

10 authors.

S Macherey-MeyerFaculty of Medicine, Clinic III for Internal Medicine, University of Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. sascha.macherey-meyer@uk-koeln.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7080-6611
M M MeertensFaculty of Medicine, Clinic III for Internal Medicine, University of Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
S HeyneFaculty of Medicine, Clinic III for Internal Medicine, University of Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
S BraumannFaculty of Medicine, Clinic III for Internal Medicine, University of Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
T TichelbäckerFaculty of Medicine, Clinic III for Internal Medicine, University of Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
H WienemannFaculty of Medicine, Clinic III for Internal Medicine, University of Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
V MauriFaculty of Medicine, Clinic III for Internal Medicine, University of Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
S BaldusFaculty of Medicine, Clinic III for Internal Medicine, University of Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
C Adler *Faculty of Medicine, Clinic III for Internal Medicine, University of Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
S Lee *Faculty of Medicine, Clinic III for Internal Medicine, University of Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is standard of care in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) suitable for interventional revascularization. Intracoronary imaging by optical coherence tomography (OCT) expanded treatment approaches adding diagnostic information and contributing to stent optimization.

objectivesThis meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of OCT-guided vs. angiography-guided PCI in treatment of ACS.

methodsA structured literature search was performed. All controlled trials evaluating OCT-guided vs. angiography-guided PCI in patients with ACS were eligible. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

resultsEight studies enrolling 2612 patients with ACS were eligible. 1263 patients underwent OCT-guided and 1,349 patients angiography-guided PCI. OCT guidance was associated with a 30% lower likelihood of MACE (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53-0.93, p = 0.01, I

conclusionThe evidence suggests that PCI guidance with OCT in ACS decreases MACE, cardiac death and target lesion revascularization compared to angiography. On individual study level, in subgroup or sensitivity analyses these advantages were not thoroughly replicable.

Indexed as

Acute Coronary SyndromeCoronary AngiographyPercutaneous Coronary InterventionTomography, Optical CoherenceCoronary VesselsHumansTreatment OutcomeAngiographyNSTE-ACSOCTOptical coherence tomographyPCIPercutaneous coronary interventionSTEMI

Identifiers

PMID37524839
PMCPMC11219421

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.