Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39729182›Full record

ArticleCardiovascular intervention and therapeutics2025

Impact of intravascular ultrasound on limb events in endovascular therapy for patients with peripheral arterial disease: insights from the TOMA-CODE registry.

Takahide Kodama, Masanari Kuwabara, Daisuke Ueshima, Tetsuo Yamaguchi, Yo Fujimoto, Toru Miyazaki, Atsushi Mizuno, Kenji Suzuki, Hitoshi Anzai, Michiaki Higashitani

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
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

10 authors.

Takahide KodamaDepartment of Cardiology, Toranomon Hospital, 2-2-2, Toranomon, Minato, Tokyo, Japan. kodama-tk@toranomon.gr.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7029-1881
Masanari KuwabaraDepartment of Cardiology, Toranomon Hospital, 2-2-2, Toranomon, Minato, Tokyo, Japan.
Daisuke UeshimaDepartment of Cardiology, Kameda Medical Center, Chiba, Japan.
Tetsuo YamaguchiDepartment of Cardiology, Toranomon Hospital, 2-2-2, Toranomon, Minato, Tokyo, Japan.
Yo FujimotoDepartment of Cardiology, Toranomon Hospital, 2-2-2, Toranomon, Minato, Tokyo, Japan.
Toru MiyazakiDepartment of Cardiology, Ome Municipal General Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Atsushi MizunoDepartment of Cardiology, St. Luke's International Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Kenji SuzukiDepartment of Cardiology, Tokyo Saiseikai Central Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Hitoshi AnzaiDepartment of Cardiology, Ota Memorial Hospital, Gunma, Japan.
Michiaki HigashitaniDepartment of Cardiology, Tokyo Teishin Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) has become a standard procedure for performing coronary intervention, but its impact on peripheral endovascular therapy (EVT) remains unclear. To assess the usefulness of IVUS during EVT, this study analyzed over 2000 consecutive patients from the TOkyo-taMA peripheral vascular intervention research COmraDE (TOMA-CODE) registry with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in Japan. The primary outcome was chronic limb events (a composite of clinically driven target lesion revascularization (cTLR) and major amputation) during a two-year follow-up period. The secondary outcomes included the procedural success rate, in-hospital major adverse limb events (MALE), and major cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Patients with and without IVUS were compared using propensity score matching. Among the 2227 eligible cases enrolled, with a median follow-up period of 10.4 months, there were no significant differences in limb events between IVUS (784 patients) and non-IVUS (1443 patients) groups during the follow-up period (15.4% vs. 14.4%, P = 0.53, unadjusted; 14.8% vs. 15.4%, P = 0.77, adjusted). In contrast, the IVUS group had higher procedural success rates (98.7% vs. 96.7%, P = 0.02) and lower in-hospital MALE (1.6% vs. 4.1%, P = 0.01), even after multiple adjustments. Additionally, there was no significant difference in the MACCE incidence (10.9% vs. 12.2%, P = 0.47) between the groups. This study demonstrated that IVUS usage did not reduce the occurrence of limb events among EVT patients in the chronic phase, but IVUS may improve in-hospital outcomes. Further research is necessary to verify these findings.

Indexed as

Endovascular ProceduresPeripheral Arterial DiseaseUltrasonography, InterventionalAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansJapanMaleMiddle AgedRegistriesTreatment OutcomeCalcificationChronic total occlusionEndovascular therapyIntravascular ultrasound

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.