ArticleGalen medical journal2020
Value of Delta Fractional Flow Reserve (ΔFFR) For Predicting Coronary Ischemic Lesions.
Article in Galen medical journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe decrease in fractional flow reserve (FFR) after adenosine administration from baseline FFR value (termed as ΔFFR) may reflect the compensatory capacity of the microvascular circulation and thus may predict significant coronary stenotic lesions. We aimed to investigate whether baseline FFR and ΔFFR can help identify the coronary ischemic lesion and its severity. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis cross-sectional study was performed on 154 consecutive patients (Mean age 62.42 ± 9.36 years) that underwent coronary angiography and with definitive intermediate coronary lesions at any of the coronary vessels. FFR was calculated by dividing the mean distal intracoronary pressure by the mean arterial pressure. ΔFFR was also defined as the difference between baseline FFR and hyperemic FFR (considering FFR<0.75 as the criteria for ischemia).
resultsThe area under receiver-operating characteristic curve for baseline FFR was found as 0.933, and for ΔFFR was 0.946 indicated high values of both indices for predicting ischemic lesions. The best cut-off point for baseline FFR and ΔFFR for discriminating ischemic lesions from the normal condition was 89.5 (yielding a sensitivity of 92.2% and a specificity of 68.0%) and 9.5 (yielding a sensitivity of 96.0% and a specificity of 85.3%), respectively.
conclusionOur study could successfully demonstrate the high value of both baseline FFR and ΔFFR for predicting coronary ischemic lesions with the cut-off values of <89.5 and >9.5, 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.