ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2021
The relationship between coronary stenosis morphology and fractional flow reserve: a computational fluid dynamics modelling study.
Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 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.
- Invasive validation of novel 1D models for computation of coronary fractional flow reserve.Cardiovascular research · 2025Article
- Computational fluid dynamics modeling of coronary artery blood flow using OpenFOAM: Validation with the food and drug administration benchmark nozzle model.Journal of X-ray science and technology · 2024Article
- Hemodynamic influence of mild stenosis morphology in different coronary arteries: a computational fluid dynamic modelling study.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Deep learning-based detection of functionally significant stenosis in coronary CT angiography.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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aims: International guidelines mandate the use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and/or non-hyperaemic pressure ratios to assess the physiological significance of moderate coronary artery lesions to guide revascularization decisions. However, they remain underused such that visual estimation of lesion severity continues to be the predominant decision-making tool. It would be pragmatic to have an improved understanding of the relationship between lesion morphology and haemodynamics. The aim of this study was to compute virtual FFR (vFFR) in idealized coronary artery geometries with a variety of stenosis and vessel characteristics. Methods and results: Coronary artery geometries were modelled, based upon physiologically realistic branched arteries. Common stenosis characteristics were studied, including % narrowing, length, eccentricity, shape, number, position relative to branch, and distal (myocardial) resistance. Computational fluid dynamics modelling was used to calculate vFFRs using the VIRTUheart™ system. Percentage lesion severity had the greatest effect upon FFR. Any ≥80% diameter stenosis in two views (i.e. concentric) was physiologically significant (FFR ≤ 0.80), irrespective of length, shape, or vessel diameter. Almost all eccentric stenoses and all 50% concentric stenoses were physiologically non-significant, whilst 70% uniform concentric stenoses about 10 mm long straddled the ischaemic threshold (FFR 0.80). A low microvascular resistance (MVR) reduced FFR on average by 0.05, and a high MVR increased it by 0.03. Conclusion: Using computational modelling, we have produced an analysis of vFFR that relates stenosis characteristics to haemodynamic significance. The strongest predictor of a positive vFFR was a concentric, ≥80% diameter stenosis. The importance of MVR was quantified. Other lesion characteristics have a limited impact.
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.