ArticleJournal of cardiovascular translational research2023
Functional Assessment of Coronary Artery Stenosis from Coronary Angiography and Computed Tomography: Angio-FFR vs. CT-FFR.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular translational research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Agreement of Fractional Flow Reserve Estimated by Computed Tomography With Invasively Measured Fractional Flow Reserve: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Pooled it
- Comparative diagnostic performance and stability of deep learning- and CFD-based CT-FFR across vessels, cardiac phases, and centers.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Dynamic CT myocardial perfusion combined with coronary CT angiography for detecting hemodynamical significance of coronary artery stenosis: a comparative study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- CT coronary fractional flow reserve based on artificial intelligence using different software: a repeatability study.BMC medical imaging · 2024Article
- Comparative Analysis of the Feasibility of Myocardial Blood Flow Index Versus CT-FFR in the Diagnosis of Suspected Coronary Artery Disease.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study was designed to compare the diagnostic performance of angio-FFR and CT-FFR for detecting hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis. Angio-FFR and CT-FFR were measured in 110 patients (139 vessels) with stable coronary disease using invasive FFR as the reference standard. On per-patient basis, angio-FFR was highly correlated with FFR (r =0.78, p <0.001), while the correlation was moderate between CT-FFR and FFR (r =0.68, p <0.001). Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for angio-FFR were 94.6%, 91.4%, and 96.0%, respectively; and those of CT-FFR were 91.8%, 91.4%, and 92%, respectively. Bland-Altman analysis showed that angio-FFR had a larger average difference and a smaller root mean squared deviation than CT-FFR compared with FFR (-0.014±0.056 vs. 0.0003±0.072). Angio-FFR had a slightly higher AUC than that of CT-FFR (0.946 vs. 0.935, p =0.750). Angio-FFR and CT-FFR computed from coronary images could be accurate and efficient computational tools for detecting lesion-specific ischemia of coronary artery stenosis. Angio-FFR and CT-FFR calculated based on the two types of images can both accurately diagnose functional ischemia of coronary stenosis. CT-FFR can act as a gatekeeper to the catheter room, assisting doctors in determining whether patients need to be screened by coronary angiography. Angio-FFR can be used in the catheter room to determine the functional significant stenosis for helping decision-making in revascularization.
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.