ReviewReviews in cardiovascular medicine2023
Intracoronary Imaging: Current Practice and Future Perspectives.
Review in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intravascular Imaging-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Calcified Coronary Lesions: A Network Meta-Analysis.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Long-Term Lesion Progression After Left Main Distal Bifurcation Stenting: Insights From Bifurcation Angle Variation Throughout the Cardiac Cycle.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- From Echo to Coronary Angiography: Optimizing Ischemia Evaluation Through Multimodal Imaging.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- When Functional Assessment Meets Intravascular Imaging in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Unlocking the Secrets of Acute Coronary Syndromes Using Intravascular Imaging: From Pathophysiology to Improving Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Thirty-Day Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy Following Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Review
- OCT Guidance in Bifurcation Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Contribution of the Optical Coherence Tomography in Calcified Lesions.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Thirty-Days versus Longer Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Treatment after Percutaneous Coronary Interventions with Newer Drug-Eluting Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intracoronary imaging has brought new insight in the field of interventional cardiology. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) are the most commonly used imaging modalities. Regarding their technical characteristics IVUS and OCT have similarities as well as differences, a fact that could have significant clinical implications. Both techniques play an important role in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) guidance and demonstrated superiority compared to intravascular coronary angiography (ICA) guidance alone. Furthermore, their use can notably assist coronary plaque evaluation; both provide additional information of plaque characteristics, which can lead to a better understanding of the cause of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and better clinical outcomes. However, there is not enough clinical evidence for the superiority of one method compared to the other, something that is, also, reflected in the guidelines. In this review, we aim to compare role of IVUS and OCT in the different aspects of coronary artery disease (CAD), according to the latest scientific data. In addition, we present the future perspectives regarding the IVUS and OCT, with co-registration of the two methods or hybrid OCT-IVUS catheters.
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.