ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Coronary Revascularization: Evidence from Randomized and Non-Randomized Studies.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluation of the relative benefits of FFR-guided, angiography-guided CR or culprit-only revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Pooled it
- Physiology guided coronary revascularization using a hybrid RFR-FFR strategy for Non ST elevation acute coronary syndrome.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Usefulness of intravascular pressure ratio measurement for cerebral hemodynamics in carotid artery stenting patients.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Simple visual estimation of coronary angiography is limited by several factors that can hinder the proper classification of coronary lesions. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the most widely used tool to perform a physiological evaluation of coronary stenoses. Compared to isolated angiography, FFR has been demonstrated to be more effective in selecting those lesions associated with myocardial ischemia and, accordingly, impaired outcomes. At the same time, deferring coronary intervention in those lesions that do not show ischemic FFR values has proven safe and not associated with adverse events. Despite a major randomized clinical trial (RCT) and several non-randomized studies showing that FFR-guided revascularization could be superior to isolated angiography in improving clinical outcomes, subsequent RCTs have reported conflicting results. In this review, we summarize the principles behind FFR and the data currently available in the literature, highlighting the main differences between randomized and non-randomized studies that investigated this topic.
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.