ArticleCirculation. Cardiovascular interventions2025
Adjunctive Imaging and Physiology During PCI Among Black and White Medicare Beneficiaries: Disparities in Utilization Patterns and Outcomes.
Article in Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions, 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
Abstract
backgroundRacial differences in the use and outcomes of intravascular imaging (IVI) and invasive physiology (IP) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are underreported in the United States.
methodsMedicare Fee-For-Service claims data were used to examine the use and outcomes of IVI- and IP-guided PCI by Black versus White race (2016-2023). Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between race and IVI/IP use. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events, which included myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and death. Outcomes were compared by race according to the device used (IVI versus none; IP versus none; and among all IVI/IP recipients). Cox regression was used to estimate the association between race and 2-year outcomes, adjusting for all baseline characteristics.
resultsThe study included 1 481 343 PCI patients (5.9% Black patients, 63.6% male, mean age 75.3±7.0 years). IVI was used in 17.6% of PCIs in White patients and 15.0% in Black patients; IP use was 7.1% and 5.7%, respectively. After adjustment, Black adults were less likely to receive IVI (odds ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.93-0.96]) or IP (odds ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.81-0.85]). IVI- and IP-guided PCI had lower major adverse cardiovascular event risk at 2-years in both racial groups compared with angiography alone: IVI (White patients: hazard ratio [HR], 0.93 [95% CI, 0.92-0.94]; Black patients: HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.84-0.87]) and IP (White patients: HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.92-0.98]); Black patients: HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.83-0.91]). However, despite global benefits with IVI/IP, Black adults had a higher adjusted risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with White adults (HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.01-1.03]).
conclusionsIVI- and IP-guided PCI were associated with improved outcomes in both Black and White beneficiaries, yet these technologies were less frequently used in Black adults, and overall PCI outcomes remained worse for this group.
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.