ArticleComputational and mathematical methods in medicine2020
Virtual FFR Quantified with a Generalized Flow Model Using Windkessel Boundary Conditions.
Article in Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing a non-invasive diagnostic framework for the fractional flow reserve quantification in left coronary arteries: validation with patient cases.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- [Application advances of fractional flow reserve in endovascular treatment of lower-extremity arterial disease].Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has proved its efficiency in improving patient diagnosis. In this paper, we consider a 2D reconstructed left coronary tree with two artificial lesions of different degrees. We use a generalized fluid model with a Carreau law and use a coupled multidomain method to implement Windkessel boundary conditions at the outlets. We introduce our methodology to quantify the virtual FFR and conduct several numerical experiments. We compare FFR results from the Navier-Stokes model versus generalized flow model and for Windkessel versus traction-free outlet boundary conditions or mixed outlet boundary conditions. We also investigate some sources of uncertainty that the FFR index might encounter during the invasive procedure, in particular, the arbitrary position of the distal sensor. The computational FFR results show that the degree of stenosis is not enough to classify a lesion, while there is a good agreement between the Navier-Stokes model and the non-Newtonian flow model adopted in classifying coronary lesions. Furthermore, we highlight that the lack of standardization while making FFR measurement might be misleading regarding the significance of stenosis.
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.