ArticleScientific reports2021
The importance of three dimensional coronary artery reconstruction accuracy when computing virtual fractional flow reserve from invasive angiography.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comprehensive workflow for CCTA and OCT data fusion with 3D printing validation: advancing patient-specific testing environments for percutaneous coronary intervention devices.Biomedical engineering online · 2025Article
- Virtual physiological analysis of non-culprit disease in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease: a substudy of the COMPLETE trial.European heart journal open · 2025Article
- Advancing Progressive Web Applications to Leverage Medical Imaging for Visualization of Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine and Multiplanar Reconstruction: Software Development and Validation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Article
- Patient-specificFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Reconstruction and Validation of Arterial Geometries for Computational Fluid Dynamics Using Multiple Temporal Frames of 4D Flow-MRI Magnitude Images.Cardiovascular engineering and technology · 2023Article
- Rapid virtual fractional flow reserve using 3D computational fluid dynamics.European heart journal. Digital health · 2023Article
- Validation of a novel numerical model to predict regionalized blood flow in the coronary arteries.European heart journal. Digital health · 2023Article
- Sex differences in coronary microvascular resistance measured by a computational fluid dynamics model.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Incorporating clinical parameters to improve the accuracy of angiography-derived computed fractional flow reserveEuropean heart journal. Digital health · 2022Article
- The Complementary Value of Absolute Coronary Flow in the Assessment of Patients with Ischaemic Heart Disease (the COMPAC-Flow Study).Nature cardiovascular research · 2022Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Coronary Angiography-Based Vessel Fractional Flow Reserve (vFFR) Virtual Stenting.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Refining Our Understanding of the Flow Through Coronary Artery Branches; Revisiting Murray's Law in Human Epicardial Coronary Arteries.Frontiers in physiology · 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
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Three dimensional (3D) coronary anatomy, reconstructed from coronary angiography (CA), is now being used as the basis to compute 'virtual' fractional flow reserve (vFFR), and thereby guide treatment decisions in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Reconstruction accuracy is therefore important. Yet the methods required remain poorly validated. Furthermore, the magnitude of vFFR error arising from reconstruction is unkown. We aimed to validate a method for 3D CA reconstruction and determine the effect this had upon the accuracy of vFFR. Clinically realistic coronary phantom models were created comprosing seven standard stenoses in aluminium and 15 patient-based 3D-printed, imaged with CA, three times, according to standard clinical protocols, yielding 66 datasets. Each was reconstructed using epipolar line projection and intersection. All reconstructions were compared against the real phantom models in terms of minimal lumen diameter, centreline and surface similarity. 3D-printed reconstructions (n = 45) and the reference files from which they were printed underwent vFFR computation, and the results were compared. The average error in reconstructing minimum lumen diameter (MLD) was 0.05 (± 0.03 mm) which was < 1% (95% CI 0.13-1.61%) compared with caliper measurement. Overall surface similarity was excellent (Hausdorff distance 0.65 mm). Errors in 3D CA reconstruction accounted for an error in vFFR of ± 0.06 (Bland Altman 95% limits of agreement). Errors arising from the epipolar line projection method used to reconstruct 3D coronary anatomy from CA are small but contribute to clinically relevant errors when used to compute vFFR.
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.