ReviewNature reviews. Cardiology2026
Intracoronary imaging in percutaneous coronary intervention: why, when, how and which from large, randomized trials.
Review in Nature reviews. Cardiology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The introduction of intracoronary imaging (ICI) into clinical practice has been one of the major advances in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with atherosclerotic coronary artery disease. However, because the procedural advantages of ICI in routine clinical practice can be offset by higher costs and longer procedural times, high-quality evidence demonstrating the net clinical benefits of ICI guidance has long been awaited. The publication of eight large (n > 1,000 patients), international, randomized studies (the ILUMIEN IV, IVUS-ACS, IVUS-CHIP, IVUS-XPL, OCCUPI, OCTOBER, RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI and ULTIMATE trials) has provided substantial data on the clinical use of ICI guidance to improve the safety and outcomes of patients undergoing PCI. However, the heterogeneity of the study populations, lack of standardized criteria across ICI protocols and the mixed results of randomized trials have left uncertainty about why and when the use of ICI confers a benefit in real-world settings. In this Review, by discussing the study characteristics and procedural aspects that contributed to the consistency and heterogeneity across trials, we provide a practical and comprehensive appraisal of the appropriateness - why, when, how and which - of ICI guidance in the clinical decision-making process for contemporary PCI, with the overall aim of improving clinical outcomes.
Identifiers
42687017What 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.