The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Intravascular imaging-guided coronary drug-eluting stent implantation: an updated network meta-analysis
Abstract
BACKGROUND Previous meta-analyses have shown reduced risks of composite adverse events with intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with angiography guidance alone. However, these studies have been insufficiently powered to show whether all-cause death or all myocardial infarction are reduced with intravascular imaging guidance, and most previous intravascular imaging studies were done with intravascular ultrasound rather than optical coherence tomography (OCT), a newer imaging modality. We aimed to assess the comparative performance of intravascular imaging-guided PCI and angiography-guided PCI with drug-eluting stents. METHODS For this systematic review and updated meta-analysis, we searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception to Aug 30, 2023, for studies that randomly assigned patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents either to intravascular ultrasound or OCT, or both, or to angiography alone to guide the intervention. The searches were done and study-level data were extracted independently by two investigators. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure, defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel-myocardial infarction (TV-MI), or target lesion revascularisation, assessed in patients randomly assigned to intravascular imaging guidance (intravascular ultrasound or OCT) versus angiography guidance. We did a standard frequentist meta-analysis to generate direct data, and a network meta-analysis to generate indirect data and overall treatment effects. Outcomes were expressed as relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs at the longest reported follow-up duration. This study was registered with the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO, number CRD42023455662). FINDINGS 22 trials were identified in which 15 964 patients were randomised and followed for a weighted mean duration of 24·7 months (longest duration of follow-up in each study ranging from 6 to 60 months). Compared with angiography-guided PCI, intravascular imaging-guided PCI resulted in a decreased risk of target lesion failure (RR 0·71 [95% CI 0·63-0·80]; p<0·0001), driven by reductions in the risks of cardiac death (RR 0·55 [95% CI 0·41-0·75]; p=0·0001), TV-MI (RR 0·82 [95% CI 0·68-0·98]; p=0·030), and target lesion revascularisation (RR 0·72 [95% CI 0·60-0·86]; p=0·0002). Intravascular imaging guidance also reduced the risks of stent thrombosis (RR 0·52 [95% CI 0·34-0·81]; p=0·0036), all myocardial infarction (RR 0·83 [95% CI 0·71-0·99]; p=0·033), and all-cause death (RR 0·75 [95% CI 0·60-0·93]; p=0·0091). Outcomes were similar for OCT-guided and intravascular ultrasound-guided PCI. INTERPRETATION Compared with angiography guidance, intravascular imaging guidance of coronary stent implantation with OCT or intravascular ultrasound enhances both the safety and effectiveness of PCI, reducing the risks of death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularisation, and stent thrombosis. FUNDING Abbott.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Sterne, J. A. C., Savović, J., Page, M. J., Elbers, R. G., Blencowe, N. S., Boutron, I., Cates, C. J., Cheng, H.-Y., Corbett, M. S., Eldridge, S. M., et al. (2019) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.l4898 · Cited by 34,787
Hutton, B., Salanti, G., Caldwell, D. M., Chaimani, A., Schmid, C. H., Cameron, C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Straus, S., Thorlund, K., Jansen, J. P., et al. (2015) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m14-2385 · Cited by 8,269
2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization
Neumann, F.-J., Sousa-Uva, M., Ahlsson, A., Alfonso, F., Banning, A. P., Benedetto, U., Byrne, R. A., Collet, J.-P., Falk, V., Head, S. J., et al. (2019) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394 · Cited by 7,167
How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial
Balduzzi, S., Rücker, G., & Schwarzer, G. (2019) · Evidence Based Mental Health · doi:10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117 · Cited by 5,827
Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis
Dias, S., Welton, N. J., Caldwell, D. M., & Ades, A. E. (2010) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.3767 · Cited by 2,521 · cited 1×
“22 For the second analysis, the back-calculation method 23 was used to report and compare the direct and indirect treatment effects using network meta-analyses within a frequentist framework for the same comparisons and outcomes.”
MethodWhat to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta‐analysis of sparse data
J. Sweeting, M., J. Sutton, A., & C. Lambert, P. (2004) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1761 · Cited by 1,734
2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization
Lawton, J. S., Tamis-Holland, J. E., Bangalore, S., Bates, E. R., Beckie, T. M., Bischoff, J. M., Bittl, J. A., Cohen, M. G., DiMaio, J. M., Don, C. W., et al. (2022) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2021.09.006 · Cited by 1,558
Cited by
2024 ESC Guidelines for the management of chronic coronary syndromes
Vrints, C., Andreotti, F., Koskinas, K. C., Rossello, X., Adamo, M., Ainslie, J., Banning, A. P., Budaj, A., Buechel, R. R., Chiariello, G. A., et al. (2024) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehae177 · Cited by 2,774
Self-citationRao, S. V., O’Donoghue, M. L., Ruel, M., Rab, T., Tamis-Holland, J. E., Alexander, J. H., Baber, U., Baker, H., Cohen, M. G., Cruz-Ruiz, M., et al. (2025) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000001309 · Cited by 625
Metadata
- Authors
- Stone, G. W., Christiansen, E. H., Ali, Z. A., Andreasen, L. N., Maehara, A., Ahmad, Y., Landmesser, U., & Holm, N. R.
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-03
- Volume
- 403
- Issue
- 10429
- Pages
- 824-837
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W4392006104
- Cited by
- 323
- References
- 37
- FWCI
- 123.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Intravascular imaging-guided coronary drug-eluting stent implantation: an updated network meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(23)02454-6
- The paper
- Stone, G. W., Christiansen, E. H., Ali, Z. A., Andreasen, L. N., Maehara, A., Ahmad, Y., Landmesser, U., & Holm, N. R. (2024). Intravascular imaging-guided coronary drug-eluting stent implantation: an updated network meta-analysis. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(23)02454-6
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.