ArticleAmerican journal of cardiovascular disease2022
FFR pressure wire comparative study for drift: piezo resistive versus optical sensor.
Article in American journal of cardiovascular disease, 2022. 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.
- Late-systolic to early-diastolic hemodynamic force analysis in ischemic heart disease using vector flow mapping and invasive pressure measurement.Heart and vessels · 2026Article
- Effect of prolonged pressure equalization on final drifting during pressure wire studies.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Assessment of the functional severity of coronary lesions from optical coherence tomography based on ensembled learning.Biomedical engineering online · 2023Article
- Fractional flow reserve and non-hyperemic indices: Essential tools for percutaneous coronary interventions.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to assess the stability of pressure derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement and the handling performance of the OptoWire Deux with an optical pressure sensor relative to the PressureWire X with piezo resistive pressure sensors.
methodsThis multicenter centre observational study included 50 patients between June 2017 and November 2018 undergoing a diagnostic coronary angiography with FFR measurement of moderate to severe lesions. The reliability of FFR measurement measured with the OptoWire Deux relative to the PressureWire X in each lesion was assessed by the presence of drift. Handling characteristics for both pressure wires were assessed by a 5-point scale and by comparing the time between equalization and crossing the distal target lesion.
resultsHundred and sixteen measurements in 50 patients were performed. Very stable and reliable FFR measurements with the optical sensors were registered, relative to the piezo resistive pressure sensors. There is statistically significant difference in favor of the OptoWire Deux over the PressureWire X (P=0.001). However, the differences are small, when drift values were compared as continuous variables, no statistically significant difference was found for both directional (P=0.435) as for absolute drift (P=0.058).
conclusionsIn patients undergoing FFR measurement, both optical sensor pressure wires (Optowire Deux) as piezo resistive sensor pressure wires (PressureWire X) generate stable and reliable pressure and thus FFR measurement. The optical pressure sensor is less susceptible for drift relative to the piezo resistive pressure sensor, but the difference is within an acceptable range.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35291508PMC8918737What 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.