ReviewOpen heart2020
Non-hyperaemic pressure ratios to guide percutaneous coronary intervention.
Review in Open heart, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Culprit versus Complete Revascularization during the Initial Intervention in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Using a Virtual Treatment Planning Tool: Results of a Single-Center Pilot Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Trial
- The Contemporary Role of Intracoronary Physiological Assessment: Fractional Flow Reserve, Non-Hyperemic Pressure Ratios, Wireless Technologies, and Microcirculation.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- When Functional Assessment Meets Intravascular Imaging in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Diagnostic performance of quantitative flow ratio in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes in comparison to non-hyperemic pressure ratios: a prospective study.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2023Article
- Intravascular Imaging versus Physiological Assessment versus Biomechanics-Which Is a Better Guide for Coronary Revascularization.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Revascularization Options for Left Main Disease: What Clinicians Need to Know.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2023Review
- Fractional flow reserve and non-hyperemic indices: Essential tools for percutaneous coronary interventions.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Review
- Comparison of Fractional Flow Reserve with Resting Non-Hyperemic Indices in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Article
- Current and Future Applications of Computational Fluid Dynamics in Coronary Artery Disease.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Coronary Revascularization: Evidence from Randomized and Non-Randomized Studies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Hyperaemic and non-hyperaemic indices for functional assessment of coronary lesions in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis.European heart journal. Case reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in guiding revascularisation improves patient outcomes and has been well-established in clinical guidelines. Despite this, the uptake of FFR has been limited, likely attributable to the perceived increase in procedural time and use of hyperaemic agents that can cause patient discomfort. This has led to the development of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), an alternative non-hyperaemic pressure ratio (NHPR). Since its inception, the use of iFR has been supported by an increasing body of evidence and is now guideline recommended. More recently, other commercially available NHPRs including diastolic hyperaemia-free ratio and resting full-cycle ratio have emerged. Studies have demonstrated that these indices, in addition to mean distal coronary artery pressure to mean aortic pressure ratio, are mathematically analogous (with specific nuances) to iFR. Additionally, there is increasing data demonstrating the equivalent diagnostic performance of alternative NHPRs in comparison with iFR and FFR. These NHPRs are now integral within most current pressure wire systems and are commonly available in the catheter laboratory. It is therefore key to understand the fundamental differences and evidence for NHPRs to guide appropriate clinical decision-making.
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.