Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 522

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance on Long-Term Mortality in Stenting for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis

Open access
Park, Seung-Jung, Kim, Young-Hak, Park, Duk-Woo, Lee, Seung-Whan, Kim, Won-Jang, Suh, Jon, Yun, Sung-Cheol, Lee, Cheol Whan, Hong, Myeong-Ki, Lee, Jae-Hwan, Park, Seong-Wook·2009·Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions

Abstract

Background— Although intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance has been useful in stenting for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis, its impact on long-term mortality is still unclear. Methods and Results— In the MAIN-COMPARE registry, patients with unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis in a hemodynamically stable condition underwent elective stenting under the guidance of IVUS (756 patients) or conventional angiography (219 patients). Patients with acute myocardial infarction were excluded. The 3-year outcomes between the 2 groups were primarily compared using propensity-score matching in the entire and separate populations according to stent type. In 201 matched pairs of the overall population, there was a tendency of lower risk of 3-year morality with IVUS guidance compared with angiography guidance (6.0% versus 13.6%, log-rank P =0.063; hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.03; Cox-model P =0.061). In particular, in 145 matched pairs of patients receiving drug-eluting stent, the 3-year incidence of mortality was lower with IVUS guidance as compared with angiography guidance (4.7% versus 16.0%, log-rank P =0.048; hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.15 to 1.02; Cox model P =0.055). In contrast, the use of IVUS guidance did not reduce the risk of mortality in 47 matched pairs of patients receiving bare-metal stent (8.6% versus 10.8%, log-rank P =0.35; hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.18 to 1.91; Cox model P =0.38). The risk of myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularization was not associated with the use of IVUS guidance. Conclusions— Elective stenting with IVUS guidance, especially in the placement of drug-eluting stent, may reduce the long-term mortality rate for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis when compared with conventional angiography guidance.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circinterventions.108.799494

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 24 references

Cited by

See all 522

Metadata

Authors
Park, S.-J., Kim, Y.-H., Park, D.-W., Lee, S.-W., Kim, W.-J., Suh, J., Yun, S.-C., Lee, C. W., Hong, M.-K., Lee, J.-H., & Park, S.-W.
Venue
Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions
Published
2009-06
Volume
2
Issue
3
Pages
167-177
ISSN
  • 1941-7632 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-7640
OpenAlex
W2009401462
Cited by
522
References
24
FWCI
38.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance on Long-Term Mortality in Stenting for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circinterventions.108.799494
The paper
Park, S.-J., Kim, Y.-H., Park, D.-W., Lee, S.-W., Kim, W.-J., Suh, J., Yun, S.-C., Lee, C. W., Hong, M.-K., Lee, J.-H., & Park, S.-W. (2009). Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance on Long-Term Mortality in Stenting for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. https://doi.org/10.1161/circinterventions.108.799494

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.