ArticleHeart and vessels2011
Utility of myocardial fractional flow reserve for prediction of restenosis following sirolimus-eluting stent implantation.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Implications of Fractional Flow Reserve Measured Immediately After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2024Article
- Prognostic value of post-percutaneous coronary intervention diastolic pressure ratio.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2022Article
- Validation of novel 3-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography based software to calculate fractional flow reserve post stenting.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2021Article
- Physiology-Based Revascularization: A New Approach to Plan and Optimize Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.JACC. Asia · 2021Review
- A randomized controlled trial of a physiology-guided percutaneous coronary intervention optimization strategy: Rationale and design of the TARGET FFR study.Clinical cardiology · 2020Article
- A promising carbon-11-labeled sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 1-specific PET tracer for imaging vascular injury.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2017Article
- The Value of Pre- and Post-Stenting Fractional Flow Reserve for Predicting Mid-Term Stent Restenosis Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI).Global journal of health science · 2015Article
- "Wedge effect" in stenosed coronary artery assessed using a PressureWire: change in pressure waveform during percutaneous coronary intervention in a patient with a coronary artery-left ventricular fistula.Heart and vessels · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drug-eluting stents reduce restenosis due to neointimal growth suppression. Considering long-term outcomes, it is both difficult and important to predict drug-eluting stent restenosis. Thus, this study was designed to examine the utility of myocardial fractional flow reserve (FFR) as a predictor of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) restenosis. Thirty-three patients (35 lesions) were enrolled. Upon completion of SES implantation, FFR was obtained under hyperemia. At 8 months of follow-up, coronary angiography revealed that five lesions had restenosis. Percent diameter stenosis (restenosis 68.7 ± 12.8% vs. non-restenosis 68.7 ± 12.4%, p = 0.78) and lesion length (restenosis 15.8 ± 9.4 mm vs. non-restenosis 14.4 ± 9.2 mm, p = 0.60) were similar. At post-intervention, percent diameter stenosis (restenosis 16.4 ± 6.1% vs. non-restenosis 14.0 ± 7.4%, p = 0.48) and minimum stent area (restenosis 6.01 ± 1.08 mm2 vs. non-restenosis 6.27 ± 1.85 mm2, p = 0.92) were also equivalent. However, proximal edge lumen area was smaller (restenosis 4.24 ± 1.40 mm2 vs. non-restenosis 7.73 ± 2.64 mm2, p = 0.004) and FFR was lower in the restenosis group (restenosis 0.81 ± 0.12 vs. non-restenosis 0.92 ± 0.06, p = 0.029). SES patients with restenosis had a lower FFR post stent deployment, suggesting the decreased FFR may be a useful predictor for SES restenosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21221600What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.