ArticleEuropean radiology2022
Coronary flow disturbance assessed by vorticity as a cause of functionally significant stenosis.
Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prospective evaluation of speckle-tracking echocardiography for detecting functionally significant coronary artery disease: a quantitative flow ratio-based study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- High-resolution deep learning reconstruction to improve the accuracy of CT fractional flow reserve.European radiology · 2025Article
- Establishing the longitudinal hemodynamic mapping framework for wearable-driven coronary digital twins.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Coronary Angiography Derived Computational Fractional Flow Reserve.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Energy loss is related to CT fractional flow reserve progression in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2023Article
- Coronary Artery Vorticity to Predict Functional Plaque Progression in Participants with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging · 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
15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesVorticity calculated using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) could assess the flow disturbance generated by coronary stenosis. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether vorticity would be an underlying cause of functionally significant stenosis assessed by invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR).
methodsThis retrospective study included 113 patients who underwent coronary CT angiography showing intermediate stenosis and subsequent invasive FFR between December 2015 and March 2020. Vorticity at the stenosis site was calculated using a mesh-free CFD method. We also evaluated the minimum lumen area (MLA) and diameter stenosis (DS) of the lesion. Invasive FFR of ≤ 0.80 was considered functionally significant. Data were compared using Student's t-test and logistic regression analysis was performed.
resultsOf the evaluated 144 vessels, 53 vessels (37%) showed FFR ≤ 0.80. Vorticity of significant stenosis was significantly higher than non-significant stenosis (569 ± 78 vs. 328 ± 34 s
conclusionsVorticity had a statistically significant negative relationship with invasive FFR independent of geometric stenosis. KEY POINTS: • Flow disturbance caused by coronary stenosis could be evaluated by calculating vorticity which is defined as the norm of the rotation of the velocity vector. • Vorticity was statistically significantly higher in stenosis with functional significance than stenosis without. • Vorticity has an additive value to detect functionally significant stenosis over geometrical stenosis.
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.