ArticleScientific reports2024
Intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction Based on Institutional Experience With IVUS.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- Comparison of prognosis between intravascular ultrasound-guided and angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome.American journal of translational research · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The benefits of intravascular ultrasonography (IVUS)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the clinical context of cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction are lacking. We aimed to investigate the impact of IVUS-guided PCI in patients with AMI and CS. From the pooled data based on a series of Korean AMI registries during 2011-2020, we identified 1418 consecutive patients who underwent PCI with second generation drug-eluting stent (DES) for AMI and CS. The primary endpoint was the 1-year rate of target lesion failure (TLF), defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemic-driven target lesion revascularization. In total, 294 (20.7%) and 1124 (79.3%) underwent IVUS-guided and angiography-guided PCI with second generation DES implantation, respectively. The 1-year TLF was not significantly different between groups after IPTW analysis (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.65-1.34, p = 0.70). Additionally, the adjusted landmark analysis for TLF at 30 days and between 30 days and 1 year after PCI demonstrated no significant difference between the groups. In conclusion, in patients with AMI and CS who underwent PCI with second-generation DES, IVUS-guided PCI did not improve the 1-year TLF compared with angiography-guided PCI.Registration: URL: http://cris.nih.go.kr . KCT0000863 and KCT0008355.
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.