ArticleHeart and vessels2017
Coronary lesion characteristics with mismatch between fractional flow reserve derived from CT and invasive catheterization in clinical practice.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Additional diagnostic value of new CT imaging techniques for the functional assessment of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis.European radiology · 2019Pooled it
- Comparison of Computed Tomography derived Fractional Flow Reserve to invasive Fractional Flow Reserve in Diagnosis of Functional Coronary Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis.Scientific reports · 2018Pooled it
- Cardiac Computed Tomography Angiography in the Evaluation of Coronary Artery Disease: An Interventional Perspective.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2024Review
- The predictive factors affecting false positive in on-site operated CT-fractional flow reserve based on fluid and structural interaction.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High diagnostic performance of noninvasive fractional flow reserve computed from CT (FFR-CT) was recently reported in prospective multicenter trials. The aims of this study were to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of FFR-CT in clinical practice and to examine the lesion characteristics showing a mismatch between FFR-CT and invasive FFR. A total of 20 patients (29 vessels) with suspected coronary artery disease were included. All patients underwent invasive coronary angiography and invasive FFR according to coronary artery CT angiography (CCTA) findings. The same raw data used for CCTA were used to evaluate FFR-CT. Results from FFR-CT were compared with invasively measured FFR. A positive ischemia was defined as FFR <0.80. Analyses from three vessels in two patients were not evaluated because of severe calcification or motion artifacts. The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of FFR-CT per-vessel basis were 81, 100, and 69 %, respectively. To find the reason for mismatch in positive ischemia, lesion characteristics determined with CCTA were compared between the matched group and the mismatched group. A significant difference in bifurcation lesions with positive remodeling was observed between the matched group and the mismatched group (p < 0.01). The high sensitivity of FFR-CT may provide an additional support to the use of CCTA, although particular attention should be paid when using FFR-CT in bifurcation lesions with positive remodeling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27624311What 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.