ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2019
Computationally simulated fractional flow reserve from coronary computed tomography angiography based on fractional myocardial mass.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of the ratio of vessel-specific volume to fractional myocardial mass on fractional flow reserve.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Functional cardiac CT-Going beyond Anatomical Evaluation of Coronary Artery Disease with Cine CT, CT-FFR, CT Perfusion and Machine Learning.The British journal of radiology · 2020Review
- Pressure-flow curve derived from coronary CT angiography for detection of significant hemodynamic stenosis.European radiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Computed tomography angiography (CCTA)-based calculations of fractional flow reserve (FFR) can improve the diagnostic performance of CCTA for physiologically significant stenosis but the computational resource requirements are high. This study aimed at establishing a simple and efficient algorithm for computing simulated FFR (S-FFR). A total of 107 patients who underwent CCTA and invasive FFR measurements were enrolled in the study. S-FFR was calculated using 145 evaluable coronary arteries with off-the-shelf softwares. FFR ≤ 0.80 was a reference threshold for diagnostic performance of diameter stenosis (DS) ≥ 50%, DS ≥ 70%, or S-FFR ≤ 0.80. FFR ≤ 0.80 was identified in 78 vessels (54%). In per-vessel analysis, S-FFR showed good correlation (r = 0.83) and agreement (mean difference = 0.02 ± 0.08) with FFR. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of S-FFR ≤ 0.80 for FFR ≤ 0.80 were 84%, 92%, 92%, 83%, and 88%, respectively. S-FFR ≤ 0.80 showed much higher predictive performance for FFR ≤ 0.80 compared with DS ≥ 50% or DS ≥ 70% (c-statistics = 0.92 vs. 0.58 or 0.65, p < 0.001, all). The classification agreement between FFR and S-FFR was > 80% when the average of FFR and S-FFR was < 0.76 or > 0.86. Per-patient analysis showed consistent results. In this study, a simple and computationally efficient simulated FFR (S-FFR) algorithm is designed and tested using non-proprietary off-the-shelf software. This algorithm may expand the accessibility of clinical applications for non-invasive coronary physiology study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30128848What 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.