Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34516621›Full record

ReviewEuropean heart journal2022

Invasive and non-invasive assessment of ischaemia in chronic coronary syndromes: translating pathophysiology to clinical practice.

Ozan M Demir, Haseeb Rahman, Tim P van de Hoef, Javier Escaned, Jan J Piek, Sven Plein, Divaka Perera

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European heart journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Accuracy of analytically determined fractional flow reserve derived from coronary angiography for non-invasive assessment of coronary artery stenosis.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ozan M DemirBritish Heart Foundation Centre of Excellence and National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at the School of Cardiovascular Medicine and Sciences, King's College London, Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7EH, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8909-5277
Haseeb RahmanBritish Heart Foundation Centre of Excellence and National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at the School of Cardiovascular Medicine and Sciences, King's College London, Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7EH, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1369-5553
Tim P van de HoefDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam 1105 AZ, Netherlands.
Javier EscanedDepartment of Cardiology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos IDISCC, Complutense University of Madrid, SpainCalle del Prof Martín Lagos, Madrid 28040, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4932-0112
Jan J PiekDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam 1105 AZ, Netherlands.
Sven PleinDepartment of Biomedical Imaging Science, Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0997-4384
Divaka PereraBritish Heart Foundation Centre of Excellence and National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at the School of Cardiovascular Medicine and Sciences, King's College London, Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7EH, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6362-1291

Funding

British Heart Foundation CH/16/2/32089British Heart Foundation FS/16/49/32320British Heart Foundation PG/19/9/34228British Heart Foundation RG/16/1/32092Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intracoronary physiology testing has emerged as a valuable diagnostic approach in the management of patients with chronic coronary syndrome, circumventing limitations like inferring coronary function from anatomical assessment and low spatial resolution associated with angiography or non-invasive tests. The value of hyperaemic translesional pressure ratios to estimate the functional relevance of coronary stenoses is supported by a wealth of prognostic data. The continuing drive to further simplify this approach led to the development of non-hyperaemic pressure-based indices. Recent attention has focussed on estimating physiology without even measuring coronary pressure. However, the reduction in procedural time and ease of accessibility afforded by these simplifications needs to be counterbalanced against the increasing burden of physiological assumptions, which may impact on the ability to reliably identify an ischaemic substrate, the ultimate goal during catheter laboratory assessment. In that regard, measurement of both coronary pressure and flow enables comprehensive physiological evaluation of both epicardial and microcirculatory components of the vasculature, although widespread adoption has been hampered by perceived technical complexity and, in general, an underappreciation of the role of the microvasculature. In parallel, entirely non-invasive tools have matured, with the utilization of various techniques including computational fluid dynamic and quantitative perfusion analysis. This review article appraises the strengths and limitations for each test in investigating myocardial ischaemia and discusses a comprehensive algorithm that could be used to obtain a diagnosis in all patients with angina scheduled for coronary angiography, including those who are not found to have obstructive epicardial coronary disease.

Indexed as

Coronary StenosisCoronary AngiographyHumansIschemiaMicrocirculationSyndromeCoronary circulationCoronary physiologyStable coronary artery disease

Identifiers

PMID34516621
PMCPMC8757583

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.