ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2021
Physiologic Assessment of Coronary Stenosis: Current Status and Future Directions.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- FFRangio-guided versus pressure wire-guided PCI: design and rationale of the multicentre, randomised ALL-RISE trial.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
- Accuracy of segment anything model for classification of vascular stenosis in digital subtraction angiography.CVIR endovascular · 2025Article
- The Prognostic Value of Residual Gensini Score on 1-Year Cardiac Mortality in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Research in heart yield and translational medicine · 2025Article
- Fractional Flow Reserve Implications for Clinical Decision Making in Coronary Artery Disease.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Intravascular imaging and physiologic assessment in ambiguous coronary lesion.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2024Article
- Fractional Flow Reserve: Patient Selection and Perspectives.Vascular health and risk management · 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a commonly used treatment option in coronary artery disease (CAD). Reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in those randomized to PCI compared to optimal medical therapy have been demonstrated only if it is performed for physiologically significant coronary lesions. Despite data demonstrating improved outcomes primarily in stable CAD and then acute settings, physiology-guided PCI remains underutilized. This review summarizes the evidence and commonly used methods for physiologic assessment of coronary stenosis. RECENT
findingsFractional flow reserve (FFR) is the gold standard for the analysis of lesion severity. Its use is limited by the need for adenosine, which adds time, complexity, and potential adverse effects. Non-hyperemic instantaneous wave-free ratio-guided revascularization and quantitative flow reserve ratio assessment both have shown safety and effectiveness with improved patient outcomes. Coronary physiological assessment solves the ambiguity of coronary angiography. Detecting physiologically significant stenoses is crucial to decide which lesion needs to be treated. Technological advances have led to the development of new assessment indices in addition to FFR.
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.