ArticlePloS one2021
A real-world comparison of outcomes between fractional flow reserve-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated stenosis estimation of coronary angiographies using end-to-end learning.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2025Article
- Quantitative Flow Ratio-Guided Revascularization: Equally Effective Between the Sexes.JACC. Asia · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Noninvasive Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography-Derived FFR for Coronary Lesion-Specific Ischemia Based on Deep Learning Analysis.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Coronary Revascularization: Evidence from Randomized and Non-Randomized Studies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been shown to be superior to angiography-guided PCI in randomized controlled studies. However, real-world data on the use and outcomes of FFR-guided PCI remain limited. Thus, we investigated the outcomes of patients undergoing FFR-guided PCI compared to angiography-guided PCI in a large, state-wide unselected cohort. METHODS AND
resultsAll patients undergoing PCI between June 2017 and June 2018 in New South Wales, Australia, were included. The cohort was stratified into the FFR-guided group when concomitant FFR was performed, and the angiography-guided group when no FFR was performed. The primary outcome was a combined endpoint of death or myocardial infarction (MI). Secondary outcomes included all-cause death, cardiovascular (CVS) death, and MI. The cohort comprised 10,304 patients, of which 542 (5%) underwent FFR-guided PCI. During a mean follow-up of 12±4 months, the FFR-guided PCI group had reduced occurrence of the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR] 0.34, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.20-0.56, P<0.001), all-cause death (HR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07-0.47, P = 0.001), CVS death (HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07-0.66, P = 0.01), and MI (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.25-0.84, P = 0.01) compared to the angiography-guided PCI group. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed FFR-guidance to be an independent predictor of the primary outcome (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27-0.75, P = 0.002), all-cause death (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08-0.59, P = 0.003), and CVS death (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09-0.83, P = 0.02).
conclusionsIn this real-world study of patients undergoing PCI, FFR-guidance was associated with lower rates of the primary outcome of death or MI, as well as the secondary outcomes of all-cause death and CVS death.
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.