SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Comparison of intravascular imaging, physiological assessment and angiography for coronary revascularization in acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) technique to treat acute coronary syndrome (ACS) requires further investigation. This network meta-analysis evaluated the effects of physiological assessment and intravascular imaging techniques on the prevalence of adverse cardiac outcomes following PCIs. Methods: We reviewed PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases for the purpose of identifying all randomized control trials published up to October 30, 2024, comparing the impact of intravascular imaging, physiology assessment, or angiography techniques on outcomes. The primary outcome for this research was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) occurrences. Each PCI strategy was ranked Results: Twenty-eight RCTs with 18,221 patients were identified. Compared with angiography, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)- (RR: 0.62; 95%CI: 0.46-0.85) and fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided PCI (RR: 0.62; 95%CI: 0.46-0.85) reduced the risk of MACE. Patients who received quantitative flow ratio (QFR)-guided PCI experienced lower all-cause mortality (RR: 0.25; 95%CI: 0.07-0.92) vs. those receiving angiography. Similarly, the RR decreased to 0.64 after using FFR-guided PCI vs. angiographic procedures (95% CI: 0.44-0.91). Compared to angiography, the subgroup analysis showed inconsistent results for IVUS-guided PCI in preventing MACE for both the optimization (RR: 0.60; 95%CI: 0.49-0.74) and decision-making (RR: 0.55; 95%CI: 0.05-6.18). The likelihood of developing MACE was lower for FFR-guided CR than for angiography-guide culprit-only PCIs (RR-0.72; 95%CI: 0.53-0.97), as confirmed by sensitivity assessment results. The research unveiled no statistically significant differences between FFR-guided culprit-only PCIs and culprit-only PCIs or angiography-guided CR. Conclusion: IVUS- and FFR-guided PCI lowers the MACE risk in patients with ACS. In addition, IVUS achieved the best results in ACS patients undergoing PCI. Systematic Review Registration: INPLASY (inplasy.com), INPLASY202420092.
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.