Safety and Efficacy of Minimum- or Zero-Contrast IVUS–Guided Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conventional percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) frequently cause severe complications in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. Low-to-zero contrast intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guided PCIs are promising alternatives in the CKD setting. We aim to systematically review up-to-date literature that have reported data and outcomes of low-to-zero contrast PCIs performed in CKD patients. We searched Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases for full-text articles that reported original data regarding efficacy and/or safety outcomes of IVUS-guided PCIs in patients with CKD. The quality of non-randomized trials included was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Six papers were included in the present systematic review: One non-randomized trial, two case series, and three case reports. Given the literature reported so far, contrast-free and IVUS-guided PCI procedures in patients with CKD appear to be safe (both in cardiac and renal outcomes) with a comparable efficacy to the conventional procedure, even in complex atherosclerotic lesions. No patient included in the mentioned studies showed renal function deterioration and did not need renal replacement therapy after the zero-contrast IVUS-guided percutaneous procedures. From a cardiovascular point of view, this technique proved to be safe in terms of cardiovascular outcomes. The undesirable consequences of conventional PCI in the CKD population might soon be effectively hampered by safer low-to-zero contrast IVUS-guided PCI procedures after a mandatory and rigorous evidence-based validation in long-awaited randomized controlled trials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".