SynthesisJournal of the American Heart Association2020
Coronary Flow Capacity to Identify Stenosis Associated With Coronary Flow Improvement After Revascularization: A Combined Analysis From DEFINE FLOW and IDEAL.
Synthesis in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Coronary Flow Capacity to Identify Stenosis Associated With Coronary Flow Improvement After Revascularization: A Combined Analysis From DEFINE FLOW and IDEAL.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2020Pooled it
- Impact of coronary revascularization on coronary flow capacity measured by transthoracic Doppler echocardiography in patients with chronic coronary syndrome.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Editorial: Advances in predicting future adverse coronary events: the role of cardiovascular imaging and coronary physiology indices.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- The impact of coronary revascularization on vessel-specific coronary flow capacity and long-term outcomes: a serial [15O]H2O positron emission tomography perfusion imaging study.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2022Article
- Robust Association Between Changes in Coronary Flow Capacity Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Vessel-Oriented Outcomes and the Implication for Clinical Practice.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Coronary flow capacity: where to next?EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 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
22 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Coronary flow capacity (CFC), which is a categorical assessment based on the combination of hyperemic coronary flow and coronary flow reserve (CFR), has been introduced as a comprehensive assessment of the coronary circulation to overcome the limitations of CFR alone. The aim of this study was to quantify coronary flow changes after percutaneous coronary intervention in relation to the classification of CFC and the current physiological cutoff values of fractional flow reserve, instantaneous wave-free ratio, and CFR. Methods and Results Using the combined data set from DEFINE FLOW (Distal Evaluation of Functional Performance With Intravascular Sensors to Assess the Narrowing Effect -Combined Pressure and Doppler FLOW Velocity Measurements) and IDEAL (Iberian-Dutch-English), a total of 133 vessels that underwent intracoronary Doppler flow measurement before and after percutaneous coronary intervention were analyzed. CFC classified prerevascularization lesions as normal (14), mildly reduced (40), moderately reduced (31), and severely reduced (48). Lesions with larger impairment of CFC showed greater increase in coronary flow and vice versa (median percent increase in coronary flow by revascularization: 4.2%, 25.9%, 50.1%, and 145.5%, respectively;
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.