ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2020
Correlation between fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio with morphometric assessment by optical coherence tomography in diabetic patients.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Angiographically-derived fractional flow reserve and optical coherence tomography findings after coronary stenting.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2025Article
- Comparison of Fractional Flow Reserve with Resting Non-Hyperemic Indices in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Article
- The Continuum of Invasive Techniques for the Assessment of Intermediate Coronary Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- OCT-Derived Plaque Morphology and FFR-Determined Hemodynamic Relevance in Intermediate Coronary Stenoses.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently there is lack of data regarding the use of optical coherence tomography (OCT) to depict the hemodynamic relevance of coronary stenoses in diabetic patients. We sought to assess the diagnostic accuracy of OCT-derived morphologic assessment in identifying hemodynamically significant coronary lesions as determined by both, the resting instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and the hyperemic fractional flow reserve (FFR) in diabetic patients. Diabetic patients presenting with at least one intermediate coronary lesion were prospectively and consecutively enrolled. All lesions were systematically assessed by iFR, FFR and OCT. A total of 41 intermediate lesions were analysed. Mean iFR and FFR values were 0.90 ± 0.04 and 0.81 ± 0.06, respectively (intra-class correlation coefficient 0.49; 95% CI 0.22-0.79). A moderate correlation between iFR and OCT derived minimal lumen diameter (MLD, r = 0.49) and minimal lumen area (MLA, r = 0.50) was found. Conversely, there was a poor correlation between FFR and OCT-derived MLD (r = 0.34) and MLA (r = 0.32). The diagnostic efficiency of MLA and MLD to identify iFR significant stenoses showed an AUC of 0.82 (95% CI 0.69-0.95) for MLD and 0.83 (95% CI 0.71-0.96) for MLA. A worse diagnostic efficiency was found when FFR was used as the reference with an AUC of 0.71 (95% CI 0.54-0.87) for MLD and 0.70 (95% CI 0.53-0.87). OCT-derived MLA and MLD were the strongest independent anatomic predictors of abnormal iFR and FFR values. In diabetic patients, OCT-derived MLA and MLD showed a moderate diagnostic efficiency in identifying functionally significant coronary stenoses by FFR or iFR. In diabetics, anatomic OCT measurements better predicted resting than FFR-determined physiologically significant 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.