MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205282163 · doi:10.1155/2021/6082581

Short- and Long-Term Prognosis of Intravascular Ultrasound-Versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-Analysis Involving 24,783 Patients

2021· review· en· W3205282163 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Qun Zhang, Bailu Wang, Yu Han, Shukun Sun, Ruijuan Lv, Shujian Wei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interventional Cardiology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Shandong ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaShandong University
KeywordsMedicineConventional PCIPercutaneous coronary interventionIntravascular ultrasoundInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionRandomized controlled trialPopulationCardiologyRetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has potential benefits. This meta-analysis aimed to explore whether IVUS-guided PCI had better short- and long-term prognoses than angiography-guided PCI. METHODS: We retrieved studies from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Clinical trials including retrospective and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared IVUS-guided PCI with angiography-guided PCI were included. The patients were followed up after operation at 30 days, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years. The clinical outcomes were target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and MACEs, including stent thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death, and all-cause death. The study population included patients with MI, coronary bifurcation lesions, short or long lesions, and unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis (ULMCA). The quality of retrospective trials was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the quality of randomized controlled trials was evaluated using the Jadad score. A total of 20 clinical trials met the criteria. Three trials were randomized controlled trials, while 17 were retrospective trials. RESULTS: A total of 24,783 patients were included. In observational trials, the OR of MACEs was 0.49 (95% CI: 0.38-0.62) in 30 days, 0.65 (95% CI: 0.58-0.73) in one year, 0.51 (95% CI: 0.36-0.71) in two years, and 0.45 (95% CI: 0.31-0.65) in three years. In patients with long coronary lesions, the OR of MACEs in 1 year was 0.64 (95% CI: 0.28-1.50). In patients with left main artery disease, the OR of MACEs in 3 years was 0.42 (95% CI: 0.26-0.67). Compared with angiography-guided PCI, IVUS-guided PCI was associated with a lower incidence of MACEs during the same following period. CONCLUSION: Compared with angiography-guided PCI, IVUS-guided PCI has better performance in reducing the occurrence of MACEs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.047
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interventional CardiologySame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207