ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2019
Hemodynamic impact of coronary stenosis using computed tomography: comparison between noninvasive fractional flow reserve and 3D fusion of coronary angiography with stress myocardial perfusion.
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 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic performance of left ventricular strain for predicting physiologically significant coronary artery disease.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2025Article
- Codify and Localize Lesions on a Coronary Acoustic Map: Scientific Rationale, Trial Design and Artificial Intelligence Algorithm Protocols.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Fusion imaging of three-dimensional echocardiographic speckle-tracking with cardiac computed tomography for identification of myocardial ischemia.Health science reports · 2021Article
- Cardiovascular imaging 2019 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 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
13 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Vasodilator-stress CT perfusion imaging in addition to CT coronary angiography (CTCA) may provide a single-test alternative to nuclear stress testing, commonly used to assess hemodynamic significance of stenosis. Another alternative is fractional flow reserve (FFR) calculated from cardiac CT images. We studied the concordance between these two approaches and their relationship to outcomes. We prospectively studied 150 patients with chest pain, who underwent CTCA and regadenoson CT. CTCA images were interpreted for presence and severity of stenosis. Fused 3D displays of subendocardial X-ray attenuation with coronary arteries were created to detect stress perfusion defects (SPD) in each coronary territory. In patients with stenosis > 25%, CT-FFR was quantified. Significant stenosis was determined by: (1) combination of stenosis > 50% with an SPD, (2) CT-FFR ≤ 0.80. Patients were followed-up for 36 ± 25 months for death, myocardial infarction or revascularization. After excluding patients with normal arteries and technical/quality issues, in final analysis of 76 patients, CTCA depicted stenosis > 70% in 13/224 arteries, 50-70% in 24, and < 50% in 187. CT-FFR ≤ 0.80 was found in 41/224 arteries, and combination of SPD with > 50% stenosis in 31/224 arteries. Inter-technique agreement was 89%. Despite high incidence of abnormal CT-FFR (30/76 patients), only 7 patients experienced adverse outcomes; 6/7 also had SPDs. Only 1/9 patients with CT-FFR ≤ 0.80 but normal perfusion had an event. Fusion of CTCA and stress perfusion can help determine the hemodynamic impact of stenosis in one test, in good agreement with CT-FFR. Adding stress CT perfusion analysis may help risk-stratify patients with abnormal CT-FFR.
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.