Observational studyScientific reports2023
Invasive physiologic assessment of coronary artery stenosis by resting full-cycle ratio and fractional flow reserve: a prospective observational study.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intravascular Imaging Versus Physiology Assessment for Intermediate Lesions During PCI.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Diastolic Hyperemia-Free Ratio in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Prospective Observational Study.Korean circulation journal · 2025Article
- Contemporary Functional Coronary Angiography: An Update.Future cardiology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Resting full-cycle ratio (RFR), an alternative to fractional flow reserve (FFR) for evaluating intermediate coronary artery stenosis, helps reduce patients' time, cost, and discomfort. However, the validation data for RFR and FFR are lacking. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of RFR and FFR and evaluate effective decision-making for revascularization using their values. Patients subjected to an invasive physiological study for intermediate coronary artery stenosis in Yongin Severance hospital between October 2020 and April 2022 were prospectively and consecutively recruited. We evaluated the correlation between RFR and FFR measurements and the diagnostic performance of RFR (≤ 0.89) versus FFR (≤ 0.80). In all, 474 intermediate coronary stenosis lesions from 400 patients were evaluated using RFR and FFR values. There was a strong linear relationship between RFR and FFR (r = 0.75, 95% CI 0.70-0.78, p < 0.01). Comparing diagnostic performance between RFR and FFR, RFR demonstrated diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 85.0%, 80.0%, 86.7%, 67.1%, and 92.7%, respectively. We analyzed the RFR value in the hyperemia zone (0.86-0.93) according to positive (RFR: 0.86-0.89) and negative (RFR: 0.90-0.93) areas. PPV in positive area is 47.8% (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 33.8% to 62.0%) and NPV in negative area is 87.7% (95% CI: 80.3% to 93.1%). Excellent correlation exists between RFR and FFR and the diagnostic value of RFR without hyperemia compared with FFR in establishing the accurate functional significance of coronary artery stenosis was shown. RFR alone could evaluate the functional significance of coronary artery stenosis without unnecessary hyperemia, except in the positive area.Trial registration: URL: http://trialsearch.who.int ; Unique identifier: KCT0005255.
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.