Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39132365›Full record

ReviewJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions

Intravascular Imaging for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Guidance and Optimization: The Evidence for Improved Patient Outcomes.

Gary S Mintz, Christos V Bourantas, Daniel Chamié

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. CVIT 2025 clinical expert consensus document on intravascular ultrasound.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. CVIT 2023 clinical expert consensus document on intravascular ultrasound.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2024
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Out of Sight, Out of Heart?Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2023
    Article
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

3 authors.

Gary S MintzCardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York.
Christos V BourantasDepartment, of Cardiology, Barts Heart Centre, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Daniel ChamiéSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As of this writing, there have been approximately 24 randomized controlled trial publications, 32 meta-analyses, and 85 registries comparing intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT) versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation (or IVUS versus OCT guidance). Although in specific clinical scenarios IVUS or OCT may be preferred, in most drug-eluting stent implantation procedures, either intravascular ultrasound or OCT can be used safely, efficiently, effectively, and interchangeably and will improve patient outcomes compared with stent implantation procedures performed just with angiography guidance.

Indexed as

Angiographyintravascular imagingintravascular ultrasoundoptical coherence tomographyoutcomespercutaneous coronary intervention

Identifiers

PMID39132365
PMCPMC11307675

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.