ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Validation of Coronary Angiography-Derived Vessel Fractional Flow Reserve in Heart Transplant Patients with Suspected Graft Vasculopathy.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Coronary Angiographic-Derived and Intracoronary Imaging-Based Fractional Flow Reserve in Assessing Coronary Artery Stenosis Severity: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Role of Computed Tomography and Other Non-Invasive and Invasive Imaging Modalities in Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Invasive Coronary Physiology in Heart Transplant Recipients: State-of-the-Art Review.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsReview
- Invasive Coronary Imaging Assessment for Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy: State-of-the-Art Review.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac transplant-related vasculopathy remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in heart transplant (HTx) recipients. Recently, coronary angiography-derived vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) has emerged as a new diagnostic computational tool to functionally evaluate the severity of coronary artery disease. Although vFFR estimates have been shown to perform well against invasive FFR in atherosclerotic coronary artery disease, data on the use of vFFR in heart transplant recipients suffering from cardiac transplant-related arteriopathy are lacking. The aim of the presented study was to validate coronary angiography-derived vessel fractional flow reserve to calculate fractional flow reserve in HTx patients with and without cardiac transplant-related vasculopathy. A prospective, single center study of HTx patients referred for annual check-up, undergoing surveillance coronarography was conducted. Invasive FFR was measured using a motorized device at the speed of 1.0 mm/s in all three major coronary arteries. Angiography-derived pullback FFR was derived from the angiogram and compared with invasive FFR pullback curve. Overall, 18,059 FFR values were extracted from the FFR pullback curves from 23 HTx patients. The mean age was 59.3 ± 9.7 years, the mean time after transplantation was 5.24 years [IQR 1.20, 11.25]. A total of 39 vessels from 23 patients (24 LAD, 11 LCX, 4 RCA) were analyzed. Mean distal vFFR was 0.87 ± 0.14 whereas invasive distal FFR was 0.88 ± 0.17. An excellent correlation was found between invasive distal FFR and vFFR (r = 0.92;
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.