ReviewEuropean cardiology2018
Assessing the Haemodynamic Impact of Coronary Artery Stenoses: Intracoronary Flow Versus Pressure Measurements.
Review in European cardiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intracoronary ECG ST-segment shift remission time during reactive myocardial hyperemia: a new method to assess hemodynamic coronary stenosis severity.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2024Observational
- Neuropsychological tests and prediction of dementia in association with the degree of carotid stenosis.Journal of applied biomedicine · 2022Article
- Pressure- and 3D-Derived Coronary Flow Reserve with Hydrostatic Pressure Correction: Comparison with Intracoronary Doppler Measurements.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Impact of proximal and distal cuff inflation on brachial artery endothelial function in healthy individuals.European journal of applied physiology · 2021Article
- Bridging the Gap in a Rare Cause of Angina.European cardiology · 2021Review
- Impact of baseline calibration on semiquantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion reserve by adenosine stress MRI.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2020Article
- Angiography-derived physiology versus pressure wire-based fractional flow reserve for coronary revascularization guidance: A systematic review and meta-analysis.JRSM cardiovascular diseaseReview
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention results in better long-term clinical outcomes compared with coronary angiography alone in intermediate stenoses in stable coronary artery disease (CAD). Coronary physiology measurements have emerged for clinical decision making in interventional cardiology, but the focus lies mainly on epicardial vessels rather than the impact of these stenoses on the myocardial microcirculation. The latter can be quantified by measuring the coronary flow reserve (CFR), a combined pressure and flow index with a strong ability to predict clinical outcomes in CAD. However, combined pressure-flow measurements show 30-40 % discordance despite similar diagnostic accuracy between FFR and CFR, which is explained by the effect of microvascular resistance on both indices. Both epicardial and microcirculatory involvement has been acknowledged in ischaemic heart disease, but clinical implementation remains difficult as it requires individual proficiency. The recent introduced pressure-only index instantaneous wave-free ratio, a resting adenosine-free stenosis assessment, led to a revival of interest in coronary physiology measurements. This review focuses on elaborating the coronary physiological parameters and potential of combined pressure-flow measurements in daily clinical practice.
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.