Observational studyScientific reports2021
Bifurcation functional significance score as predictor of mortality: a validating study.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Coronary computed tomography angiography study on the relationship between the Ramus Intermedius and Atherosclerosis in the bifurcation of the left main coronary artery.BMC medical imaging · 2023Trial
- Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography for the Diagnosis and Revascularization Guidance of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Contemporary Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Impact of the Type of Anticoagulation Therapy on Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Coronary Bifurcation Lesion and Atrial Fibrillation-Insights from the Bulgarian Bifurcation Registry.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Provisional stenting with side branch rescue stenting is associated with increased 3-year target lesion failure in patients with acute coronary syndrome and coronary bifurcation lesions.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
11 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Considerable progress has been made in the treatment of coronary bifurcation stenosis. Anatomical characteristics of the vessel and lesion, however, fail to give information about the functional significance of the bifurcation stenosis. To the best of our knowledge, there is no study that systematically establishes the baseline functional significance of coronary stenosis and its effect on procedural and clinical outcomes. Patients with significant angiographic bifurcation lesions defined as diameter stenosis > 50% in main vessel and/or side branch were included. FFR was performed in main vessel (MV) and side branch (SB) before and after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). 169 patients from Fiesta study (derivation cohort) and 555 patients from prospective bifurcation registry (clinical effect cohort) were analyzed to validate angiographic prediction score (BFSS) used to determine the potentially functional significance of coronary bifurcation stenosis. Bifurcation functional significance score (including the following parameters-SYNTAX ≥ 11, SB/MB BARI score, MV %DS ≥ 55%, main branch (MB) %DS ≥ 65%, lesion length ≥ 25 mm) with a maximum value of 11 was developed. A cut-off value of 6.0 was shown to give the best discriminatory ability-with accuracy 87% (sensitivity 77%, specificity 96%, p < 0.001). There was also a significant difference in all-cause mortality between patients with BFSS ≥ 6.0 vs. BFSS < 6.0-25.5% vs. 18.4%, log-rank p = 0.001 as well as cardiac mortality: BFSS ≥ 6.0 vs. BFSS < 6.0-17.7% vs. 14.5%, log-rank (p = 0.016). The cardiac mortality was significantly lower in patients with smaller absolute SB territory, p = 0.023. An angiographic score (BFSS) with good discriminatory ability to determine the functional significance of coronary bifurcation stenosis was developed. The value for BFSS ≥ 6.0 can be used as a discriminator to define groups with higher risk for all-cause and cardiac mortality. Also, we found that the smaller side branches pose greater mortality risk.
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.