ArticlePloS one2017
The relationship between coronary artery distensibility and fractional flow reserve.
Article in PloS one, 2017. 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.
- Synergistic prognostic value of coronary distensibility index and fractional flow reserve based cCTA for major adverse cardiac events in patients with Coronary artery disease.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2022Article
- Comprehensive assessment of coronary pulse wave velocity in anesthetized pigs.Physiological reports · 2020Article
- Computational instantaneous wave-free ratio (IFR) for patient-specific coronary artery stenoses using 1D network models.International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering · 2019Article
- Computational Assessment of Blood Flow Heterogeneity in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients' Cardiac Ventricles.Frontiers in physiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Discordance between angiography-based anatomical assessment of coronary stenosis severity and fractional flow reserve (FFR) has been attributed to several factors including lesion length and irregularity, and the myocardial territory supplied by the target vessel. We sought to examine if coronary arterial distensibility is an independent contributor to this discordance. There were two parts to this study. The first consisted of "in silico" models of 26 human coronary arteries. Computational fluid dynamics-derived FFR was calculated for fully rigid, partially distensible and fully distensible models of the 26 arteries. The second part of the study consisted of 104 patients who underwent coronary angiography and FFR measurement. Distensibility at the lesion site (DistensibilityMLA) and for the reference vessel (DistensibilityRef) was determined by analysing three-dimensional angiography images during end-systole and end-diastole. Computational fluid dynamics-derived FFR was 0.67±0.19, 0.70±0.18 and 0.75±0.17 (P<0.001) in the fully rigid, partially distensible and fully distensible models respectively. FFR correlated with both DistensibilityMLA (r = 0.36, P<0.001) and DistensibilityRef (r = 0.44, P<0.001). Two-way ANCOVA analysis revealed that DistensibilityMLA (F (1, 100) = 4.17, p = 0.031) and percentage diameter stenosis (F (1, 100) = 60.30, p < 0.01) were both independent predictors of FFR. Coronary arterial distensibility is a novel, independent determinant of FFR, and an important factor contributing to the discordance between anatomical and functional assessment of stenosis severity.
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.