ArticleCardiology and therapy2015
The Impact of Fractional Flow Reserve on Revascularization.
Article in Cardiology and therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical utility of intravascular ultrasonography-guided therapy in a small-vessel coronary lesion associated with Type 2 diabetes mellitus.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2019Article
- Preliminary Report on the Safety and Efficacy of Staged versus Complete Revascularization in Patients with Multivessel Disease at the Time of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc · 2017Article
- Improvement of Subjective Well-Being by Ranolazine in Patients with Chronic Angina and Known Myocardial Ischemia (IMWELL Study).Cardiology and therapy · 2017Article
- Clinical Application of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Coronary Artery Disease.Current cardiology reports · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFractional flow reserve (FFR) is recommended by society guidelines for assessment of the hemodynamic significance of intermediate coronary lesions when non-invasive evidence of myocardial ischemia is unavailable. However, the prevalence of FFR usage in current practice and how FFR values impact revascularization decisions are not well known.
methodsAt a single-center Veterans Administration Hospital, all subjects referred for coronary angiography for any indication from the period from May 2012 until January 2014 were prospectively entered into a database. FFR was measured in all intermediate coronary lesions (30-70% stenosis). Based on the FFR results, the lesions were categorized into 3 different groups: FFR > 0.80 (non-ischemic), FFR 0.75-0.80 (gray zone), and FFR < 0.75 (ischemic).
resultsA total of 1482 cardiac catheterizations were performed during the study period. FFR was performed in 347 (23%) of these procedures. The total numbers of intermediate coronary lesions evaluated with FFR were 429. The mean FFR value was 0.79 (median = 0.80; interquartile range 0.64-0.96). Among 211 non-ischemic lesions, revascularization was deferred in 201 (95%). In the gray-zone group (73 lesions), 35 (48%) lesions were treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), 11 (15%) lesions were referred for coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG), and 27 (37%) lesions were treated medically. In the ischemic group (145 lesions), 82 (57%) lesions were treated with PCI, 41 (28%) lesions were referred for CABG, and 22 (15%) lesions were treated medically.
conclusionAt a Veterans Administration Hospital, FFR was performed in approximately one out of four total catheterizations. FFR documented lack of ischemia in about half of the intermediate coronary lesions, and thus reduced the need for many revascularization procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.