RCTs medium-term minimal lumen diameter: forest plot Figure 5 displays a forest plot of studies reporting the medium-term (up to 1 year) duration minimal lumen diameter, IVUS-guided stent placement versus angiography-guided stent placement. The mean difference reported for individual studies, all reported by patients are: OPTICUS by Mudra 2001 (0.07, 95% CI -0.03, 0.17; Patients in IVUS 229, and Angio 228); RESIST by Schiele 1998 (0.16, 95% CI -0.02, 0.34; Patients in IVUS 79, and Angio 76); SIPS by Frey 2000 (0.04, 95% CI -0.19, 0.27; Patients in IVUS 24, and Angio 34); TULIP by Oemrawsingh 2003 (0.16, 95% CI -0.06, 0.26; Patients in IVUS 73, and Angio 71). Meta-analysis of the four RCTs (one of each rated at a low,(Mudra, 2001) medium,(Schiele, 1998;Frey, 2000;Oemrawsingh, 2003) found a significant favorable effect with IVUS-guided stent placement when compared with angiography-guided stent placement: summary mean difference 0.16 mm (95 % CI 0.06, 0.26; P = 0.002).

Figure 5RCTs of medium-term minimal lumen diameter: forest plot

Angio = angiography; CI = confidence interval; IVUS = intravascular ultrasound; n = number

Notes: Estimates favoring IVUS are in the direction of the arrow, in contrast to Figures 7-10 on diameter stenosis.

A confidence interval that crosses 0 indicates no significant mean difference; values >0 indicate that a larger minimal lumen diameter was achieved in the IVUS group over angiography alone group.

From: Results

Cover of Intravascular Diagnostic Procedures and Imaging Techniques Versus Angiography Alone in Coronary Artery Stenting: Comparative Effectiveness Review
Intravascular Diagnostic Procedures and Imaging Techniques Versus Angiography Alone in Coronary Artery Stenting: Comparative Effectiveness Review [Internet].
Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, No. 104.
Raman G, Yu W, Ip S, et al.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.