Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31268466›Full record

Trial reportJAMA cardiology2019

Temporal Changes in Coronary Hyperemic and Resting Hemodynamic Indices in Nonculprit Vessels of Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

Nina W van der Hoeven, Gladys N Janssens, Guus A de Waard, Henk Everaars, Christopher J Broyd, Casper W H Beijnink, Peter M van de Ven, Robin Nijveldt, Christopher M Cook, Ricardo Petraco and 6 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07264881 (A Prospective, Longitudinal, Multi-modal Study Evaluating the Utility of Acute Phase UFR), which is not on this map. Cited by 56 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07264881 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

A Prospective, Longitudinal, Multi-modal Study Evaluating the Utility of Acute Phase UFR (IVUS-FFR) to Predict Functional Significance in the Stable Phase for Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS)

TypeobservationalSponsorBeijing Anzhen HospitalRan2025 to 2028Enrolled200ConditionsMicrovascular Obstruction (MVO), Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease, ACS (Acute Coronary Syndrome), ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI)ArmsIVUS-based Fractional Flow Reserve (UFR), Invasive Coronary Physiology Measurement (FFR/RFR/IMR), Cardiac Magnetic Resonance (CMR)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 116 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Clinical Impact of Concordant and Discordant Physiology Parameters Post-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the EASY-PREDICT Study.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2025
    Trial
  3. Changes in non-culprit coronary lesions with PCSK9 inhibitors: the randomised, placebo-controlled FITTER trial.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Interaction between coronary lesion complexity and coronary microvascular dysfunction in the prognosis of NSTEMI patients.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026
    Article
  7. Validation of angiography-based FFR in non-culprit vessels of patients presenting with STEMI.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Functional or anatomical assessment of non-culprit lesions in acute myocardial infarction.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025
    Article
  16. Observational
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 9 institutions in 3 countries.

Nina W van der HoevenDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Gladys N JanssensDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Guus A de WaardDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Henk EveraarsDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Christopher J BroydDepartment of Cardiology, Barts Heart Centre, London, United Kingdom.
Casper W H BeijninkDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Peter M van de VenDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Robin NijveldtDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Christopher M CookDepartment of Cardiology, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Ricardo PetracoDepartment of Cardiology, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Tim Ten CateDepartment of Cardiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Clemens von BirgelenDepartment of Cardiology, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.
Javier EscanedDepartment of Cardiology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos El Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clinic San Carlos and Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Justin E DaviesDepartment of Cardiology, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Maarten A H van LeeuwenDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Niels van RoyenDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLImperial College London · GBBritish Heart Foundation · GBHammersmith Hospital · GBIsala · NLMedisch Spectrum Twente · NLRadboud University Medical Center · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversidad Complutense de Madrid · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of nonculprit vessels among patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is associated with improved clinical outcome compared with culprit vessel-only PCI. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and coronary flow reserve are hyperemic indices used to guide revascularization. Recently, instantaneous wave-free ratio was introduced as a nonhyperemic alternative to FFR. Whether these indices can be used in the acute setting of STEMI continues to be investigated. Objective: To assess the value of hemodynamic indices in nonculprit vessels of patients with STEMI from the index event to 1-month follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants: This substudy of the Reducing Micro Vascular Dysfunction in Revascularized STEMI Patients by Off-target Properties of Ticagrelor (REDUCE-MVI) randomized clinical trial enrolled 98 patients with STEMI who had an angiographic intermediate stenosis in at least 1 nonculprit vessel. Patient enrollment was between May 1, 2015, and September 19, 2017. After successful primary PCI, nonculprit intracoronary hemodynamic measurements were performed and repeated at 1-month follow-up. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed from 2 to 7 days and 1 month after primary PCI. Main Outcomes and Measures: The value of nonculprit instantaneous wave-free ratio, FFR, coronary flow reserve, hyperemic index of microcirculatory resistance, and resting microcirculatory resistance from the index event to 1-month follow-up. Results: Of 73 patients with STEMI included in the final analysis, 59 (80.8%) were male, with a mean (SD) age of 60.8 (9.9) years. Instantaneous wave-free ratio (SD) did not change significantly (0.93 [0.07] vs 0.94 [0.06]; P = .12) and there was no change in resting distal pressure/aortic pressure (mean [SD], 0.94 [0.06] vs 0.95 [0.06]; P = .25) from the acute moment to 1-month follow-up. The FFR decreased (mean [SD], 0.88 [0.07] vs 0.86 [0.09]; P = .001) whereas coronary flow reserve increased (mean [SD], 2.9 [1.4] vs 4.1 [2.2]; P < .001). Hyperemic index of microcirculatory resistance decreased and resting microcirculatory resistance increased from the acute moment to follow-up. The decrease in distal pressure from rest to hyperemia was smaller at the acute moment vs follow-up (mean [SD], 10.6 [11.2] mm Hg vs 14.1 [14.2] mm Hg; P = .05). This blunted acute hyperemic response correlated with final infarct size (ρ, -0.29; P = .02). The resistive reserve ratio was lower at the acute moment vs follow-up (mean [SD], 3.4 [1.7] vs 5.0 [2.7]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In the acute setting of STEMI, nonculprit coronary flow reserve was reduced and FFR was augmented, whereas instantaneous wave-free ratio was not altered. These results may be explained by an increased hyperemic microvascular resistance and a blunted adenosine responsiveness at the acute moment that was associated with infarct size.

Indexed as

HemodynamicsAgedCoronary StenosisCoronary VesselsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansHyperemiaMaleMicrocirculationMiddle AgedRestST Elevation Myocardial InfarctionTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID31268466
PMCPMC6613339
OpenAlexW2955390345

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.