ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2020
The Clinical Significance of Physiological Assessment of Residual Ischemia After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility of On-Site CT-FFR Analysis in Ruling Out In-Stent Restenosis on Cardiac PCCT.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- CT-derived Fractional Flow Reserve: How, When, and Where to use this Novel Cardiac Imaging Tool.Current cardiology reviews · 2024Review
- Feasibility and prognostic role of machine learning-based FFREuropean radiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewFractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) have emerged as the invasive diagnostic tools of choice for hemodynamic assessment of the severity of CAD (coronary artery disease). We sought to comprehensively review the evidence on the utility of hemodynamic assessment of the coronary stenoses after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using FFR/iFR, mechanisms of positive post-PCI iFR/FFR, and the clinical impact of significant residual ischemia. RECENT
findingsThe evidence on the utility of the post-PCI hemodynamic assessment has accumulated over the last few years. The post hoc analysis from the FAME 1 and FAME 2 data shows that higher post-PCI FFR is associated with better symptomatic improvement and lower event rate with larger increase in delta FFR (∆ FFR: post-PCI FFR - pre-PCI FFR). Unlike pre-PCI FFR, a consensus has not been established on the optimal value of post-PCI FFR, though multiple studies point toward better clinical outcomes with higher post-PCI FFR and larger ∆ FFR. Visual assessment of adequate stent apposition by coronary angiography is insufficient in evaluating for residual ischemia. The hemodynamic evaluation of residual ischemia by post-PCI FFR/iFR yields clinically relevant data and allows for appropriate post PCI optimization.
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.