ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2019
Coronary Physiology in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- From Evidence to Practice: The Growing Role of Angiography-Derived Physiology.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Hemodynamics of Proximal Coronary Lesions in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Patient-Specific In Silico Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Foundational Role of Cardiovascular Imaging in the Characterization of Mental Stress-Induced Myocardial Ischemia in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease.Current cardiology reports · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary angiography has been the principle modality for assessing the severity of atherosclerotic coronary artery disease for several decades. However, there is a complex relationship between angiographic coronary stenosis and the presence or absence of myocardial ischemia. Recent technological advances now allow for the assessment of coronary physiology in the catheterization laboratory at the time of diagnostic coronary angiography. Early studies focused on coronary flow reserve (CFR) but more recent work has demonstrated the physiologic accuracy and prognostic value of the fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave free ratio (iFR) for the assessment of coronary artery disease. These measurements have been validated in large multi-center clinical trials and have become indispensable tools for guiding revascularization in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. The physiological assessment of chest pain in the absence of epicardial coronary artery disease involves coronary thermodilution to obtain the index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) or Doppler velocity measurement to determine the coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR). Physiology-based coronary artery assessment brings "personalized medicine" to the catheterization laboratory and allows cardiologists and referring providers to make decisions based on objective findings and evidence-based treatment algorithms. The purpose of this review is to describe the theory, technical aspects, and relevant clinical trials related to coronary physiology assessment for an intended audience of general medical practitioners.
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.