ArticleCirculation. Cardiovascular interventions2025
Utilization and Outcomes Associated With Intravascular Ultrasound During Abdominal and Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Interventions in the United States in the Contemporary Era (2016-2023).
Article in Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIntravascular ultrasound (IVUS) use in aortic endovascular interventions, including thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), may have similar benefits to those seen in coronary and peripheral interventions, but limited utilization and outcome data exist.
methodsCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services claims data were used to identify patients undergoing TEVAR and EVAR from 2016 to 2023. Utilization trends were stratified by region, urbanicity, distressed communities index, community versus academic center, Medicare versus dual enrollment status, indication, urgency, and presence of dissection with malperfusion. Inverse probability weighting was used to assess the impact of IVUS on a composite outcome of repeat aortic intervention or death. Cox regression was used to estimate weighted hazard ratios.
resultsA total of 136 540 patients underwent TEVAR and EVAR, of which 9.8% (13 364) used IVUS. IVUS use increased slightly from 2016 to 2023, driven more by use in TEVAR compared with EVAR, and was higher in academic settings, with Medicare and Medicaid dual enrollment, in the West, with dissections, with malperfusion and for elective procedures. IVUS was associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome at 30-days (hazard ratio, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.73-0.89];
conclusionsIVUS use has increased slightly in TEVAR and EVAR with heterogeneity in use. IVUS implementation during TEVAR and EVAR was associated with improved early and mid-term outcomes, particularly in certain subsets.
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.