ArticleAmerican heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice2024
Clinical effects of physiologic lesion testing in influencing treatment strategy for multi-vessel coronary artery disease.
Article in American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Functional Coronary Revascularization: A Valuable Underutilized Diagnostic Approach.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
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The application of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) in multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) patients has not been definitively explored. We herein assessed how treatment strategies were decided based on FFR/iFR values in vessels selected clinically. Specifically, we sought to determine whether treatment selection was based on whether the vessel tested was the clinical target stenosis. Methods: 270 consecutive patients with angiographically determined multivessel disease who underwent FFR/iFR testing were included. Patients were classified initially based on their angiographic findings, then re-evaluated from FFR/iFR results (normal or abnormal). Tested lesions were classified into target or non-target lesions based on clinical and non-invasive evaluations. Results: Abnormal FFR/iFR values were demonstrated in 51.9 % of patients, in whom 51.4 % received coronary stenting (PCI) and 44.3 % had bypass surgery (CABG). With two-vessel CAD patients, medical therapy was preferred when the target lesion was normal (72.6 %), while PCI was preferred when it was abnormal (78.4 %). In non-target lesions, PCI was preferred regardless of FFR/iFR results (78.0 %). With three-vessel CAD patients, CABG was preferred when the target lesion was abnormal (68.5 %), and there was no difference in the selected modality when it was normal. Furthermore, the incidence of tested lesions was higher in the left anterior descending (LAD) compared to other coronary arteries, and two-vessel CAD patients with LAD stenoses were more frequently treated by PCI. Conclusion: The use of invasive physiologic testing in multivessel CAD patients may alter the preferred treatment strategy, leading to an overall increase in PCI selection.
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.