ReviewNature reviews. Cardiology2020
Non-hyperaemic coronary pressure measurements to guide coronary interventions.
Review in Nature reviews. Cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04975425 (Effects of Guiding Catheter on Fractional Flow Reserve and Non-Hyperemic Pressure Ratios for the Assessment of Coronary Artery Stenoses - Disengage @Rest), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 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.
Effects of Guiding Catheter on Fractional Flow Reserve and Non-Hyperemic Pressure Ratios for the Assessment of Coronary Artery Stenoses - Disengage @Rest
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of physiological discordance between fractional flow reserve and non-hyperaemic pressure ratios with lipid-rich plaque burden.European heart journal open · 2026Article
- Non-invasive Computational Techniques for Diagnosing Myocardial Ischemia: Challenges and Future of FFRAnnals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Recent advances in percutaneous coronary intervention for modernizing coronary physiology-guided and device-based strategies for coronary revascularization.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Fractional Flow Reserve Relates Stronger to Coronary Plaque Burden Than Nonhyperemic Pressure Indexes.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Coronary Physiology to Guide Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Why, When, and How.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2024Review
- Validation of resting full-cycle ratio and diastolic pressure ratio with [Heart and vessels · 2024Article
- Hemodynamic assessment of intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis: comparison between invasive non-hyperemic pressure ratio and angiography-derived quantitative flow ratio.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Moving toward Precision Medicine in Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Multimodal Assessment of Non-Culprit Lesions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Insufficient adenosine-induced hyperemia is a major determinant of discordance between non-hyperemic pressure ratio and fractional flow reserve.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Impact of overestimation of fractional flow reserve by adenosine on anatomical-functional mismatch.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Revascularization strategies for patients with established chronic coronary syndrome.European journal of clinical investigation · 2022Review
- Diagnostic agreement of quantitative flow ratio with fractional flow reserve in a Latin-American population.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2022Article
- Linear concentration-response relationship of serum caffeine with adenosine-induced fractional flow reserve overestimation: a comparison with papaverine.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2021Article
- Association of Echocardiographic Diastolic Dysfunction with Discordance of Invasive Intracoronary Pressure Indices.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Physiology-Based Revascularization: A New Approach to Plan and Optimize Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.JACC. Asia · 2021Review
- Effect of Elevated Left Ventricular End Diastolic Pressure on Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve Discordance.Cardiology research · 2021Article
- Optimal Prognostication of Patients with Coronary Stenoses in the Pre- and Post-PCI setting: Comments on TARGET FFR and DEFINE-FLOW Trials Presented at TCT Connect 2020.European cardiology · 2021Review
- Physiology-Based Revascularization of Left Main Coronary Artery Disease.Journal of interventional cardiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 9 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence supporting the use of coronary physiology as an adjunct to coronary angiography to guide percutaneous coronary interventions has accumulated over the past 25 years. The fractional flow reserve has dominated this evolving physiological guidance of coronary intervention and its use is supported by large clinical outcome trials. However, despite clinical practice guidelines advocating its use in most patients with coronary stenosis who are eligible for coronary intervention, the uptake of a physiology-guided approach remains limited. The use of non-hyperaemic coronary pressure measurements to guide coronary interventions was introduced in an attempt to simplify the routine application of coronary physiology-guided intervention in daily practice. Over the past decade, a large scientific effort has focused on the development of several non-hyperaemic pressure ratios. In this Review, we detail the basic principles of coronary physiology in non-hyperaemic conditions, the rationale for the use of non-hyperaemic coronary pressure measurements for stenosis evaluation, the current evidence base for the available non-hyperaemic coronary pressure ratios, the basis for the discordance between non-hyperaemic coronary pressure ratios and fractional flow reserve, and the potential advantages of these new parameters over fractional flow reserve.
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.