ArticleActa Cardiologica Sinica2015
Impact of Aortic Stiffness Evaluated by Aortic Pulsatility on Fractional Flow Reserve.
Article in Acta Cardiologica Sinica, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFractional flow reserve (FFR) is a highly reproducible, accurate and lesion-specific index to indicate inducible ischemia for a particular coronary artery lesion. Invasively measured aortic pulsatility (AP) is an indicator of aortic stiffness. In this study we aimed to evaluate the possible impact of AP in terms of aortic stiffness on FFR measurement.
methodsIn this study, we reviewed the FFR evaluation of 90 patients who had intermediate lesions (40-70% stenosis measured with quantitative coronary analysis) at the left anterior descending artery (LAD). AP was calculated as the ratio of aortic pulse pressure (systolic-diastolic pressure) to mean pressure.
resultsAortic systolic pressure, aortic diastolic pressure, aortic pulse pressure and also aortic pulsatility did not differ significantly between patients with FFR ≤ 0.80 and FFR > 0.80 (p = 0.44, p = 0.28, p = 0.93 and p = 0.41, respectively). In subgroups arranged according to the degree of luminal narrowing (40-50%, 51-60%, and 61-70%), we did not observe significant correlation between AP and FFR value in subgroups with 40-50% and 51-60% lesions (r = 0.03, p = 0.95 and r = 0.07, p = 0.69, respectively). However, a statistically significant negative correlation between FFR value and AP in the subgroup of patients with 61-70% lesions was detected (r = -0.54, p = 0.04).
conclusionsThese findings suggested that aortic stiffness might have a possible impact on FFR measurement in coronary lesions of 61-70% stenosis evaluated quantitatively. KEY WORDS: Aortic pulsatility; Fractional flow reserve; Stiffness.
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.