ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Latest Evidence on Intravascular Imaging: A Literature Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Navigating the Coronary Landscape: Towards Establishing Intracoronary Optical Coherence Tomography in Research and Clinical Practice.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Advancements in MINOCA: Do They Translate to a Better Clinical Outcome? A Review of the Literature.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Challenges and Optimization of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions for Coronary Bifurcation Lesions.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Intravascular Imaging Guidance for Left Main Interventions: The Emerging Role of Optical Coherence Tomography.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- When Functional Assessment Meets Intravascular Imaging in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intravascular imaging (IVI) has emerged as a pivotal tool in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), offering superior visualization of coronary anatomy compared with conventional angiography. This literature review synthesizes the latest evidence from randomized trials and meta-analyses published since 2022, assessing the comparative efficacy of IVI modalities-including intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT)-in complex coronary lesions. Multiple landmark trials, such as RENOVATE-COMPLEX PCI, ILUMIEN IV, OCTOBER, and OCTIVUS, demonstrated that IVI-guided PCI significantly improves procedural outcomes, stent optimization, and clinical endpoints such as target-vessel failure, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis. OCT was shown to be particularly beneficial in bifurcation and left main interventions, while IVUS consistently improved outcomes in long lesions and complex anatomies. Despite some trials not meeting their primary clinical endpoints, substudy findings and pooled analyses support a shift toward routine IVI use in anatomically complex cases. Consequently, updated guidelines now recommend IVI as a Class I indication in select patient populations. These findings underscore the need for broader clinical adoption and training in IVI techniques to enhance PCI outcomes.
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.