ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2025
Comparison of prognosis between intravascular ultrasound-guided and angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome.
Article in American journal of translational research, 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
objectiveTo compare the prognosis of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 190 ACS patients who underwent PCI between January 2019 and January 2024. Patients were equally divided into two groups: IVUS-guided (n=95) and angiography-guided PCI (n=95). Baseline characteristics, procedural details, and clinical outcomes were analyzed. Follow-up duration was one year. Primary endpoints included cardiac function parameters, target vessel-related events, major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events , and quality of life (QoL) measures.
resultsThe IVUS-guided group demonstrated better procedural outcomes, with significantly lower stent volume (P=0.002) and reduced neointima volume at 9 months (P=0.002). Improvements in cardiac function were more notable in the IVUS group, reflected in lower post-treatment left ventricular end-diastolic volume index (P=0.004) and end-systolic volume index (P=0.003). QoL scores were significantly higher in physical function (P=0.001) and social function (.002). However, IVUS-guided procedures required longer procedural time and greater contrast media use.
conclusionIVUS-guided PCI yields superior procedural precision, improved cardiac function, and better quality of life compared to angiography-guided PCI in ACS patients, with acceptable trade-offs in procedural complexity.
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.