ArticleCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2019
Accuracy of 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography for predicting physiological significance of coronary stenosis: a FAVOR II substudy.
Article in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative Flow Ratio to Predict Nontarget Vessel-Related Events at 5 Years in Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Angiography-Guided Revascularization.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Trial
- Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography for coronary lesion assessment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Article
- "Vox Populi" Fractional Flow Reserve (vpFFR)-Leveraging Wisdom of the Crowd for the Assessment of Hemodynamic Severity of Intermediate Coronary Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Virtual physiological analysis of non-culprit disease in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease: a substudy of the COMPLETE trial.European heart journal open · 2025Article
- Long-term outcomes of IVUS-guided and angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation for left main coronary artery disease: a retrospective consort study.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Methods to evaluate vascular function: a crucial approach towards predictive, preventive, and personalised medicine.The EPMA journal · 2022Review
- The association between intravascular ultrasound-derived echo-attenuation and quantitative flow ratio in intermediate coronary lesions.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2021Article
- Comparison of three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound for detecting functionally significant coronary lesions.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 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
11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThree-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography (3D-QCA) enables reconstruction of a coronary artery in 3D from two angiographic image projections. This study compared the diagnostic accuracy of 3D-QCA
methodsAll interrogated vessels in the FAVOR II China study and the FAVOR II Europe-Japan study were assessed by 2D-QCA and 3D-QCA according to standard operating procedures in core laboratories. QCA analysts were blinded to the corresponding FFR values.
resultsA total of 645 vessels from 576 patients with 3D-QCA, 2D-QCA, and FFR were analyzed. Using the conventional cut-off value of 50% for percent diameter stenosis (DS%), 3D-QCA was more accurate in predicting FFR ≤0.80 than 2D-QCA [accuracy 74.0% (95% CI: 69.9-77.7%)
conclusions3D-QCA demonstrated better diagnostic performance in predicting physiologically significant coronary stenosis compared with 2D-QCA, when FFR was used as the reference standard.
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.