ArticleJournal of interventional cardiology2020
Comparison of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio (iFR) and Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) with respect to Their Sensitivities to Cardiovascular Factors: A Computational Model-Based Study.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Synchronous wearable ultrasound for early detection of coronary and carotid artery comorbidity.Science advances · 2026Article
- Increased dose of adenosine and the relationship between the resting full-cycle ratio and fractional flow reserve.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2025Article
- Uncertainty Quantification and Sensitivity Analysis for Non-invasive Model-Based Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Prediction.International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering · 2025Article
- Coronary protection using a pressure wire during transcatheter aortic valve implantation.Journal of cardiology cases · 2024Article
- Simulation of coronary capillary transit time based on full vascular model of the heart.Computer methods and programs in biomedicine · 2024Article
- Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio in Assessment of Lesion Hemodynamic Significance and Explanation of their Discrepancies. International, Multicenter and Prospective Trial: The FiGARO Study.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Article
- Effect of Elevated Left Ventricular End Diastolic Pressure on Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve Discordance.Cardiology research · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While coronary revascularization strategies guided by instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) are, in general, noninferior to those guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) with respect to the rate of major adverse cardiac events at one-year follow-up in patients with stable angina or an acute coronary syndrome, the overall accuracy of diagnosis with iFR in large patient cohorts is about 80% compared with the diagnosis with FFR. So far, it remains incompletely understood what factors contribute to the discordant diagnosis between iFR and FFR. In this study, a computational method was used to systemically investigate the respective effects of various cardiovascular factors on FFR and iFR. The results showed that deterioration in aortic valve disease (e.g., regurgitation or stenosis) led to a marked decrease in iFR and a mild increase in FFR given fixed severity of coronary artery stenosis and that increasing coronary microvascular resistance caused a considerable increase in both iFR and FFR, but the degree of increase in iFR was lower than that in FFR. These findings suggest that there is a high probability of discordant diagnosis between iFR and FFR in patients with severe aortic valve disease or coronary microcirculation dysfunction.
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.