SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2023
Intravascular imaging guided versus coronary angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Beyond Angiography: Integrating Advanced Diagnostic Modalities in Coronary Stent Restenosis-a Systematic Review.International journal of medical sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Saudi Clinical Practice Guidelines for management of diabetic kidney disease in adults.Saudi medical journal · 2025Guideline
- Article
- Efficacy and safety of optical coherence tomography-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Intravascular Imaging for Facilitated Coronary Interventions in DES Era.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- Intravascular Imaging-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Critical Appraisal of Evidence and Clinical Practice : Short title:Intravascular Imaging-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Galen medical journal · 2026Review
- The UK Intracoronary Imaging Survey: Evaluation of Perceptions, Barriers, Education and Training.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2026Article
- A Non-Stenting Approach to Left Main Thrombus in an Oncology Patient with Acute Heart Failure: A Case Report.The American journal of case reports · 2025Article
- The Rise of Optical Coherent Tomography in Intracoronary Imaging: An Overview of Current Technology, Limitations, and Future Perspectives.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Optical Coherence Tomography-Guided vs. Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Complex Coronary Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Latest Evidence on Intravascular Imaging: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Factors Contributing to Low Utilization of Intracoronary Imaging in Clinical Practice: A White Paper.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Review
- Impact of Systematic Use of Fractional Flow Reserve and Optical Coherence Tomography on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Outcomes in Patients With Diabetes.Cardiology research · 2025Article
- Intraluminal MRI and interventions: Innovation and application.EngMedicine · 2025Article
- Knowledge, attitude, and practice of cardiac rehabilitation among patients after coronary artery stenting.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Intravascular Ultrasound Imaging-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Evidence and Practical Implications.Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal · 2025Review
- Protective effects of crocin against contrast induced acute kidney injury following angiography: A randomized controlled clinical trial.ARYA atherosclerosis · 2025Article
- The Safety and Efficacy Profile of Magnesium-Based Bioresorbable Coronary Stents as Compared to Poly-L-Lactic Acid-Based Bioresorbable and Contemporary Drug-Eluting Coronary Stents-A Systematic Review.Cardiology research and practice · 2025Review
- The role of insulin resistance in the relationship between uric acid and the severity of coronary artery disease: evidence from real-world data.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
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 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the absolute treatment effects of intravascular imaging guided versus angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with coronary artery disease, considering their baseline risk.
designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to 31 August 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials comparing intravascular imaging (intravascular ultrasonography or optical coherence tomography) guided versus coronary angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention in adults with coronary artery disease.
main outcome measuresRandom effect meta-analysis and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) were used to assess certainty of evidence. Data included rate ratios and absolute risks per 1000 people for cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, target vessel revascularization, and target lesion revascularization. Absolute risk differences were estimated using SYNTAX risk categories for baseline risks at five years, assuming constant rate ratios across different cardiovascular risk thresholds.
resultsIn 20 randomized controlled trials (n=11 698), intravascular imaging guided percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a reduced risk of cardiac death (rate ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.72), myocardial infarction (0.81, 0.68 to 0.97), stent thrombosis (0.44, 0.27 to 0.72), target vessel revascularization (0.74, 0.61 to 0.89), and target lesion revascularization (0.71, 0.59 to 0.86) but not all cause death (0.81, 0.64 to 1.02). Using SYNTAX risk categories, high certainty evidence showed that from low risk to high risk, intravascular imaging was likely associated with 23 to 64 fewer cardiac deaths, 15 to 19 fewer myocardial infarctions, 9 to 13 fewer stent thrombosis events, 28 to 38 fewer target vessel revascularization events, and 35 to 48 fewer target lesion revascularization events per 1000 people.
conclusionsCompared with coronary angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention, intravascular imaging guided percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with significantly reduced cardiac death and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. The estimated absolute effects of intravascular imaging guided percutaneous coronary intervention showed a proportional relation with baseline risk, driven by the severity and complexity of coronary artery disease. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023433568.
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.