ArticlePloS one2020
Comprehensive multimodality characterization of hemodynamically significant and non-significant coronary lesions using invasive and noninvasive measures.
Article in PloS one, 2020. 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.
- Coronary morphological and functional features in subclinical hypothyroidism with ST-Elevation myocardial infarction.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2025Article
- The Role of Coronary Imaging in Chronic Total Occlusions: Applications and Future Possibilities.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Review
- Non-Invasive Modalities in the Assessment of Vulnerable Coronary Atherosclerotic Plaques.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is limited knowledge about morphological molecular-imaging-derived parameters to further characterize hemodynamically relevant coronary lesions.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to describe and differentiate specific parameters between hemodynamically significant and non-significant coronary lesions using various invasive and non-invasive measures.
methodsThis clinical study analyzed patients with symptoms suggestive of coronary artery disease (CAD) who underwent native T1-weighted CMR and gadofosveset-enhanced CMR as well as invasive coronary angiography. OCT of the culprit vessel to determine the plaque type was performed in a subset of patients. Functional relevance of all lesions was examined using quantitative flow reserve (QFR-angiography). Hemodynamically significant lesions were defined as lesions with a QFR <0.8. Signal intensity (contrast-to-noise ratios; CNRs) on native T1-weighted CMR and gadofosveset-enhanced CMR was defined as a measure for intraplaque hemorrhage and endothelial permeability, respectively.
resultsOverall 29 coronary segments from 14 patients were examined. Segments containing lesions with a QFR <0.8 (n = 9) were associated with significantly higher signal enhancement on Gadofosveset-enhanced CMR as compared to segments containing a lesions without significant stenosis (lesion-QFR>0.8; n = 19) (5.32 (4.47-7.02) vs. 2.42 (1.04-5.11); p = 0.042). No differences in signal enhancement were seen on native T1-weighted CMR (2.2 (0.68-6.75) vs. 2.09 (0.91-6.57), p = 0.412). 66.7% (4 out of 6) of all vulnerable plaque and 33.3% (2 out of 6) of all non-vulnerable plaque (fibroatheroma) as assessed by OCT were hemodynamically significant lesions.
conclusionThe findings of this pilot study suggest that signal enhancement on albumin-binding probe-enhanced CMR but not on T1-weighted CMR is associated with hemodynamically relevant coronary lesions.
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.