Observational studyJournal of cardiovascular translational research2019
The Influence of Aortic Valve Obstruction on the Hyperemic Intracoronary Physiology: Difference Between Resting Pd/Pa and FFR in Aortic Stenosis.
Observational study in Journal of cardiovascular translational research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A randomised multicentre study of angiography- versus physiologyguided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing TAVI: design and rationale of the FAITAVI trial.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2024Article
- The stability of flow velocity and intracoronary resistance in the intracoronary electrocardiogram-triggered pressure ratio.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Patients with Concomitant Severe Aortic Stenosis and Coronary Artery Disease: A Closer Look to the Unresolved Perplexity.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Aortic Valve Disease and Associated Complex CAD: The Interventional Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Physiological Versus Angiographic Guidance for Myocardial Revascularization in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The reliability of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in aortic stenosis (AS) has been questioned because of the uncertain response to vasodilators. A retrospective multicenter cohort of 114 AS patients who underwent coronary physiology assessment was compared with 154 controls before and after propensity matching adjustment. The difference between resting distal coronary vs aortic pressure ratio (Pd/Pa) and FFR (ΔPd/Pa-FFR) was tested against the severity of AS. ΔPd/Pa-FFR was not influenced by the severity of AS in terms of aortic valve area (r = - 0.02, p = 0.83) and gradient (r = - 0.05, p = 0.64) or by the left ventricle hypertrophy (r = - 0.03, p = 0.88). Conversely, ΔPd/Pa-FFR was influenced by the presence of diabetes (r = - 0.24, p = 0.005), peripheral vascular disease (r = - 0.16, p = 0.047), and chronic kidney disease (r = - 0.19, p = 0.03). No significant difference was observed in the ΔPd/Pa-FFR between patients with AS and matched controls. Further studies are warranted to validate the FFR-guided revascularization in patients with AS.
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.