ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2026
Cost-effectiveness of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) vs. angiography-guided revascularization in femoropopliteal occlusive disease.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIntravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided revascularization offers clinical benefits compared to angiography-guided revascularization in patients with femoropopliteal occlusive disease. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of IVUS-guided versus angiography-guided revascularization from a Spanish payer perspective.
methodsA cost-effectiveness model combining a short-term decision tree and a long-term semi-Markov structure was developed to simulate clinical outcomes and costs over a lifetime horizon from the Spanish perspective. Transition probabilities, costs, and utility weights for health states including reintervention, amputation and death were derived from published literature and Spanish national databases. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs were reported in 2025 Euros. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess model robustness.
resultsIVUS-guided revascularization was associated with improved clinical outcomes and reduced lifetime costs, dominating angiography-guided revascularization. In the base case, IVUS yielded 0.29 additional lifetime QALYs and €3,289 in lifetime cost savings per patient compared with angiography, resulting in a dominance of IVUS. Scenario analysis assuming equal amputation risk still favored IVUS. One-way sensitivity analysis identified the reintervention risk and costs as key drivers, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed that IVUS dominated in over 90% of simulations.
conclusionIVUS-guided revascularization is a cost-effective strategy for femoropopliteal occlusive disease in Spain, offering superior clinical outcomes and economic efficiency. These findings support broader adoption of IVUS in peripheral interventions.
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.