SynthesisCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions2025
Efficacy and Safety of Intravascular Lithotripsy in the Management of Underexpanded Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStent underexpansion significantly heightens the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and available treatment options for this condition remain limited. Intravascular Lithotripsy (IVL) technology disrupts superficial and deep calcium by using localized pulsative sonic pressure waves, emerges as a promising tool for underexpanded stents.
aimsThis study examines the overall efficacy and safety of IVL, an until-now off-label modality, in the management of underexpanded stents.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we systematically explored PubMed, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases up to April 30, 2024, for studies evaluating IVL's safety and efficacy in treating underexpanded stents. We gathered angiographic (QCA) and intracoronary imaging (OCT or IVUS) data, examining the stent's diameter stenosis (SDS), minimal lumen diameter (MLD), minimal stent area (MSA), and minimal lumen area (MLA) pre- and post-IVL application. Procedural success constituted the efficacy endpoint, while peri-procedural complications, in-hospital-30-days and long-term mortality, and MACE were safety endpoints.
resultsThis meta-analysis comprised 23 studies including 819 patients and 837 treated lesions in underexpanded stent. The mean age was 71.7 ± 8.8 years, with an overall IVL procedural success rate of 92% [(95% confidence interval (CI): 88%-95%, I
conclusionsIVL demonstrates promise as a safe and effective strategy for underexpanded stent treatment, characterized by low rates of periprocedural complications. Future prospective studies are now warranted to compare IVL to other lesion preparation strategies.
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.