ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2021
Clinical significance of corrected relative flow reserve derived from
Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2021. 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.
- Utility ofCirculation. Cardiovascular imaging · 2025Trial
- The Effect of Motion Correction on Quantitative Perfusion Indices and Threshold-Based Interpretation inDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Myocardial perfusion imaging byEuropean heart journal open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluated corrected relative flow reserve (RFR) derived from
methodsWe analyzed 61 patients who underwent coronary CTA,
resultsOf the 180 vessels analyzed, 50 were diagnosed as obstructive lesions (≥ 70% stenosis and/or fractional flow reserve value ≤ 0.8). The coronary flow reserve (CFR), hMBF, conventional RFR, and corrected RFR of obstructive lesions were significantly lower than those of non-obstructive lesions. In receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, these quantitative PET measurements had area under the curve of 0.67, 0.71, 0.89, and 0.92, respectively. Diagnostic performance differences between corrected and conventional RFR were not statistically significant.
conclusionIn patients with single or double vessel disease, indices of RFR, with or without coronary angiographic guidance of the reference coronary territory, are better discriminators of flow-limiting stenoses than hMBF and CFR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31713117What 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.