ArticleJACC. Advances2026
Impact of IVUS Guidance on Clinical and Procedural Outcomes in Intracoronary Brachytherapy.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Intracoronary Imaging in Brachytherapy: Opportunity Knocks.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntravascular brachytherapy (ICBT) has re-emerged as an effective treatment for in-stent restenosis (ISR). Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) enables detailed assessment of stent expansion, neointimal proliferation, and other mechanical causes of ISR, potentially allowing more tailored procedural strategies and improved lesion preparation before radiation therapy.
objectivesThe objective of the study was to evaluate the clinical utility of IVUS guidance during ICBT for ISR, with emphasis on long-term clinical outcomes.
methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing ICBT for ISR between 2016 and 2024. Patients were stratified according IVUS use during the procedure. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization at follow-up. Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality and postprocedural myocardial infarction.
resultsA total of 221 patients were included (132/221 [59.7%] IVUS-guided). IVUS use was associated with larger vessel diameter (3.6 ± 0.04 mm vs 3.3 ± 0.05 mm; P < 0.001), advanced lesion preparation (65/132 [49.2%] vs 17/89 [19.1%]; P < 0.001), and longer brachytherapy dwell time (332.2 ± 2.6 s vs 313.4 ± 4.2 s; P < 0.001). At a median follow-up of 717.9 ± 46.1 days, all-cause mortality (11/132 [8.3%] vs 21/89 [23.6%]; P = 0.03) and postprocedural myocardial infarction (15/132 [11.4%] vs 23/89 [25.8%]; P = 0.005) were more frequent in the non-IVUS group. Cox regression analysis showed higher target lesion revascularization in the IVUS group (HR: 1.68; 95% CI: 1.05-2.68; P = 0.03).
conclusionsIVUS-guided ICBT for ISR was safe but was not independently associated with improved long-term outcomes.
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.