ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2026
Pilot clinical evaluation of artificial intelligence-driven guiding catheter simulation for optimizing percutaneous coronary intervention.
Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 2026. 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: In percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), a suboptimal choice of guiding catheter may compromise coaxial alignment and backup support, prolonging procedures and increasing radiation and contrast exposure. We assessed whether a computed tomography (CT)-driven, artificial intelligence (AI)-guided preprocedural simulation could improve procedural efficiency and safety. Methods and results: In a single-centre prospective registry with historical controls, 55 consecutive elective procedures performed with CT-based AI-assisted guiding-catheter selection were compared with 55 procedures performed without assistance. The primary endpoint was total procedure time from arterial access to completion. Secondary endpoints included time to coronary engagement, radiation dose, contrast volume, and guiding-catheter-related events. Computed tomography--based AI assistance was associated with shorter procedures (mean 68.5 vs. 91.8 min), shorter engagement time, lower radiation dose, and lower contrast use. Guiding-catheter exchanges were fewer, and catheter-related events were lower (3.6 vs. 16.4%; risk ratio 0.22; 95% confidence interval 0.05-0.98). Procedural success was 100% in both groups with no in-hospital major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events. Conclusion: A CT-driven, CT-based AI-guided simulation for guiding-catheter selection was associated with greater procedural efficiency and a favourable profile in elective PCI. This approach, which standardizes catheter choice and is associated with fewer empirical catheter exchanges, warrants confirmation in multicentre randomized studies and may help optimize resource utilization in routine PCI.
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.