ArticleJACC. Advances2026
Intravascular Imaging-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Calcified Coronary Lesions: A Network Meta-Analysis.
Article in JACC. Advances, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe role of intravascular imaging guidance in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of calcified coronary lesions remains incompletely defined.
objectivesThe objective of the study was to compare intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT) vs angiography-guided PCI in patients with calcified coronary lesions.
methodsA systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted. Randomized and observational studies comparing IVUS-, OCT-, and angiography-guided PCI in calcified lesions were included. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Secondary endpoints included target vessel failure, target lesion revascularization, TVR, minimum stent area (MSA), and stent thrombosis.
resultsTen studies including 4,003 patients were included. IVUS- and OCT-guided PCI were associated with significantly lower MACE compared with angiography guidance (IVUS: relative risk [RR]: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.37-0.86; OCT: RR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.52-0.82), with no statistically significant differences between imaging modalities. Results were consistent in randomized controlled trial-only sensitivity analyses. Stent thrombosis was also significantly lower with IVUS (RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.03-0.89) and OCT (RR: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.03-0.46). OCT-guided PCI was also associated with a larger MSA compared with angiography (MD +0.87 mm
conclusionsIn calcified coronary lesions, intravascular imaging is associated with lower MACE and stent thrombosis, compared with angiography guidance.
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.