ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2020
How Do PET Myocardial Blood Flow Reserve and FFR Differ?
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Effect of Motion Correction on Quantitative Perfusion Indices and Threshold-Based Interpretation inDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Efficacy of coronary computed tomography angiography and its fractional flow reserve in predicting myocardial ischemia in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease with positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging as a reference standard.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Correlation and Agreement of Quantitative Flow Ratio With Fractional Flow Reserve in Saphenous Vein Grafts.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- The myocardial perfusion paradigm: a missing link between patient selection and appropriateness of treatment.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2022Article
- Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Myocardial Perfusion, and Myocardial Blood Flow: A Longitudinal Twin Study.Biological psychiatry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThis review discusses similarities and differences between cardiac positron emission tomography (PET), absolute myocardial blood flow, and flow reserve with invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR). RECENT
findingsFundamentally, cardiac PET measures absolute myocardial blood flow whereas FFR provides a relative flow reserve. Cardiac PET offers a non-invasive and therefore lower risk alternative, able to image the entire left ventricle regardless of coronary anatomy. While cardiac PET can provide unique information about the subendocardium, FFR pullbacks offer unparalleled spatial resolution. Both diagnostic tests provide a highly repeatable and technically successful index of coronary hemodynamics that accounts for the amount of distal myocardial mass, albeit only indirectly with FFR. The randomized evidence base for FFR and its associated cost effectiveness remains unsurpassed. Cardiac PET and FFR have been intertwined since the very development of FFR over 25 years ago. Recent work has emphasized the ability of both techniques to guide revascularization decisions by high-quality physiology. In the past few years, cardiac PET has expanded its evidence base regarding clinical outcomes, whereas FFR has solidified its position in randomized studies as the invasive 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.