ArticleHerz2017
Intracoronary pressure measurement differences between anterior and posterior coronary territories.
Article in Herz, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Coronary artery height differences and their effect on fractional flow reserve.Cardiology journal · 2021Trial
- The Impact of Hydrostatic Pressure on Fractional Flow Reserve in Saphenous Vein Grafts.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
- The impact of hydrostatic pressure on the result of physiological measurements in various coronary segments.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2021Article
- Impact of Hydrostatic Pressure Variations Caused by Height Differences in Supine and Prone Positions on Fractional Flow Reserve Values in the Coronary Circulation.Journal of interventional cardiology · 2019Article
- Influence of hydrostatic pressure on intracoronary indices of stenosis severity in vivo.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2018Article
- Real-world use of fractional flow reserve in Germany: results of the prospective ALKK coronary angiography and PCI registry.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIntracoronary pressure measurements have improved assessment of angiographic intermediate coronary stenoses. Methodically, pressure equalization and actual measurements are frequently performed at different height levels, depending on the particular coronary territory analyzed. Considering a hypothetical influence of hydrostatic pressure and the supine position of the patient, differences in the results of intracoronary measurements between anterior and posterior vessels seem likely. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of intracoronary pressure measurements between anterior and posterior coronary territories.
methodsIntracoronary pressure measurements of 214 coronary stenoses in 158 patients were analyzed. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) was measured in all stenosis and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) in 197 stenoses in 144 patients.
resultsBoth FFR (0.79 vs. 0.87, p < 0.001) and iFR values (0.86 vs. 0.94, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in posterior compared to anterior coronary vessels. Patients with only anterior or posterior lesions did not differ regarding clinical or lesion characteristics, in particular coronary stenosis severity (62.5 vs. 61.6 %, p = 0.27).
conclusionsResults of intracoronary measurements were systematically higher in the posterior coronary vessels when compared with anterior vessels. This phenomenon was independent of coronary stenosis severity or any clinical characteristics in our study population.
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.