ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Comparison of Small Blood Vessel Diameter with Intravascular Ultrasound and Coronary Angiography for Guidance of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Major cardiovascular events (MACEs) are a cause of major mortality worldwide. The narrowing and blockage of coronary arteries with atherosclerotic plaques are diagnosed and treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). During this procedure, coronary angiography (CAG) remains the most widely used guidance modality for the evaluation of the affected blood vessel. The measurement of the blood vessel diameter is an important factor to consider in order to decide if stent colocation is suitable for the intervention. In this regard, a small blood vessel (<2.75 mm) is majorly left without stent colocation; however, small vessel coronary artery disease (SvCAD) is a significant risk factor for the recurrence of MACEs, maybe due to the lack of a standardized treatment related to the diameter of the affected blood vessel; therefore, a more precise measurement is needed. The use of CAG for the measurement of the blood vessel diameter has some important limitations that can be improved with the use of newer techniques such as intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), although at higher costs, which might explain its underuse. To address differences in blood vessel diameter measurements and identify specific cases where IVUS might be of additional benefit for the patient, we conducted a retrospective study in patients who underwent PCI for MACEs with affection for at least one small blood vessel. We compared the measurements of the affected small blood vessels' diameter obtained by CAG and IVUS to identify cases of reclassification of the affected blood vessel; additionally, we underwent a multivariate analysis to identify risk factors associated with blood vessel reclassification. We included information from 48 patients with a mean ± SD age of 69.1 ± 11.9 years; 70.8% were men and 29.2% were women. The mean diameter with CAG and IVUS was 2.1 mm (95% CI 1.9-2.2), and 2.8 (2.8-3.0), respectively. The estimated difference was of 0.8 mm (95% CI 0.7-0.9). We found a significant positive low correlation in diameter measurements of small blood vessels obtained with CAG and IVUS (r = 0.1242
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.