SynthesisClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2024
Angiography-based coronary microvascular assessment with and without intracoronary pressure measurements: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2024. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Coronary microvascular dysfunction mediates in-hospital adverse outcomes in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients without standard modifiable cardiovascular risk factors.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Coronary Microvascular Disease Early After Myocardial Infarction: Diagnostic Approach and Prognostic Value-A Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Advances in the diagnosis and management of post-percutaneous coronary intervention coronary microvascular dysfunction: Insights into pathophysiology and metabolic risk interactions.World journal of cardiology · 2025Review
- Prediction of microvascular obstruction from angio-based microvascular resistance and available clinical data in percutaneous coronary intervention: an explainable machine learning model.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Analysis of Metabolic Risk Factors for Microcirculation Disorders Post-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Predictive Model Construction: A Study on Patients with Unstable Angina.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Pressure Never Lies, but It Should Be Interpreted Thoughtfully: The Role of Hydrostatic Pressure in Coronary Physiology.Journal of personalized 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
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, several indices have been proposed for quantifying coronary microvascular resistance. We intended to conduct a comprehensive review that systematically evaluates indices of microvascular resistance derived from angiography.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to identify and analyze angiography-derived indices of microvascular resistance that have been validated against an invasive reference method. We aimed to compare their limits of agreement with their reference methods and explore their advantages and inherent limitations. METHODS AND
resultsWe searched PubMed from inception until 2022 for studies on different techniques for quantifying microvascular resistance. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies included techniques that applied calculations based solely on invasive angiography, and were validated against invasively measured thermodilution-derived index of microvascular resistance. The remaining two studies combined angiography with invasively measured intracoronary pressure data, and were validated against invasive Doppler measurements. We converted the ± 1.96 standard deviation limits of agreement with the reference method from the seven studies into percentages relative to the cut-off value of the reference method. The lower limits of agreement for angiography-based methods ranged from - 122 to - 60%, while the upper limits ranged from 74 to 135%. The range of the limits of agreement was considerably lower for the two combined angiography- and pressure-based methods, standing at - 52 to 60% and - 25 to 27%.
conclusionOur findings suggest that combined angiography- and pressure-based methods provide a more reliable assessment of microvascular resistance compared to methods relying solely on angiography.
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.