SynthesisCardiovascular diabetology2023
Outcomes of deferred revascularisation following negative fractional flow reserve in diabetic and non-diabetic patients: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Cardiovascular diabetology, 2023. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic implications of functional significance, high-risk plaque and vessel characteristics in patients with diabetes mellitus.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2026Article
- Beyond borderline physiology: determinants of treatment choice and phenotypes of outcome in QFR grey-zone lesions.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Article
- Triglyceride to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio associated with long-term adverse clinical outcomes in patients deferred revascularization following fractional flow reserve.Lipids in health and disease · 2024Article
- Outcomes of Fractional Flow Reserve-guided Deferred Coronary Revascularization.Heart views : the official journal of the Gulf Heart AssociationArticle
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFractional Flow Reserve (FFR) is a widely applied invasive physiological assessment, endorsed by major guidelines to aid in the decision to perform or defer revascularisation. While a threshold of > 0.8 has been applied universally, clinical outcomes may be affected by numerous factors, including the presence of diabetes. This meta-analysis aims to investigate the outcomes of diabetic versus non-diabetic patients in whom revascularisation was deferred based on negative FFR.
methodsWe performed a meta-analysis investigating the outcomes of diabetic and non-diabetic patients in whom revascularisation was deferred based on negative FFR. A search was performed on MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE, and peer-reviewed studies that reported MACE for diabetic and non-diabetic patients with deferred revascularisation based on FFR > 0.8 were included. The primary end point was MACE.
resultsThe meta-analysis included 7 studies in which 4275 patients had revascularisation deferred based on FFR > 0.8 (1250 diabetic). Follow up occurred over a mean of 3.2 years. Diabetes was associated with a higher odds of MACE (OR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.35-2.04, p = < 0.001), unplanned revascularisation (OR = 1.48, 95% CI 1.06-2.06, p = 0.02), all-cause mortality (OR = 1.74, 95% CI 1.20-2.52, p = 0.004) and cardiovascular mortality (OR = 2.08, 95% CI 1.07-4.05, p = 0.03).
conclusionsFor patients with stable coronary syndromes and deferred revascularisation based on FFR > 0.8, the presence of diabetes portends an increased long-term risk of MACE compared to non-diabetic patients. Trail registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ; Unique identifier: CRD42022367312.
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.