ArticleHeart and vessels2022
Agreement between single plane and biplane derived angiographic fractional flow reserve in patients with intermediate coronary artery stenosis.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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
- Validation of pressure-bounded coronary flow reserve using invasive coronary physiologic assessment.Heart and vessels · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is often used to evaluate the physiological severity of intermediate coronary stenoses, but less-invasive assessment methods are desirable. We evaluated the feasibility of angiographic FFR (angioFFR) calculated from two projections acquired simultaneously by a biplane C-arm system and angioFFR calculated from two projections acquired independently by one plane of the same biplane C-arm system. AngioFFR was validated against FFR in terms of detection of hemodynamically relevant coronary artery stenoses. Twenty-two Patients who underwent angiography and FFR for coronary artery disease were included. We used a non-commercial prototype to calculate biplane angioFFR for 22 vessels (19 LAD, 1 LCx, 2 RCA) and single plane angioFFR for 17 of the same 22 vessels. FFR < 0.8 was measured in 8 vessels. The Pearson correlation coefficients with FFR were 0.55 for single plane angioFFR and 0.61 for biplane angioFFR and the diagnostic accuracies were 88% (95% CI 73-100%) for single plane angioFFR and 86% (95% CI 72-100%) for biplane angioFFR. Bland-Altman plots revealed that compared with FFR, the limits of agreement for single plane angioFFR were - 0.07 to 0.19 (mean difference 0.06, p = 0.002) and the limits of agreement for biplane FFR were - 0.09 to 0.15 (mean difference 0.03, p = 0.03). In conclusion, angioFFR calculated from single or biplane acquisitions by a biplane C-arm is feasible and may evolve to a tool for less invasive imaging-based assessment of myocardial ischemia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34762151What 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.