Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38526753›Full record

ArticleHeart and vessels2024

Diagnostic accuracy of Murray law-based quantitative flow ratio in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Fukuishi Yuta, Hiroyuki Kawamori, Takayoshi Toba, Takashi Hiromasa, Satoru Sasaki, Tomoyo Hamana, Hiroyuki Fujii, Yuto Osumi, Seigo Iwane, Tetsuya Yamamoto and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Heart and vessels, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Fukuishi YutaDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-1 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, 650-0017, Japan.
Hiroyuki KawamoriDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-1 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, 650-0017, Japan.
Takayoshi TobaDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-1 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, 650-0017, Japan.
Takashi HiromasaDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-1 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, 650-0017, Japan.
Satoru SasakiDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-1 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, 650-0017, Japan.
Tomoyo HamanaDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-1 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, 650-0017, Japan.
Hiroyuki FujiiDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-1 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, 650-0017, Japan.
Yuto OsumiDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-1 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, 650-0017, Japan.
Seigo IwaneDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-1 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, 650-0017, Japan.
Tetsuya YamamotoDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-1 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, 650-0017, Japan.
Shota NaniwaDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-1 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, 650-0017, Japan.
Yuki SakamotoDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-1 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, 650-0017, Japan.
Koshi MatsuhamaDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-1 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, 650-0017, Japan.
Ken-Ichi HirataDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-1 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, 650-0017, Japan.
Hiromasa OtakeDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-1 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, 650-0017, Japan. hotake@med.kobe-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9953-0551

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMurray law-based quantitative flow ratio (μQFR) is a novel computational method that enables accurate estimation of fractional flow reserve (FFR) using a single angiographic projection. However, its diagnostic value in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) remains unclear.

methodWe included 25 consecutive patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for severe AS with intermediate or greater (30-90%) coronary artery disease (CAD). Pre- and post-TAVR μQFR, QFR, instantaneous flow reserve (iFR), and post-TAVR invasive FFR values were measured. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of pre-TAVR μQFR, QFR, and iFR using post-TAVR FFR ≤ 0.80 as a reference standard of ischemia.

resultPre-TAVR μQFR was significantly correlated with post-TAVR FFR (r = 0.73, p < 0.0001). The area under the curve of pre-TAVR μQFR on post-TAVR FFR ≤ 0.8 was 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.98), comparable to that of pre-TAVR iFR (0.86 [95% CI 0.71-0.98], p = 0.97). The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of pre-TAVR μQFR on post-TAVR FFR ≤ 0.8 were 84.2% (95% CI 68.7-93.4), 61.6% (95% CI 31.6-86.1), 96.0% (95% CI 79.6-99.9), 88.9% (95% CI 52.9-98.3), and 82.8% (95% CI 70.6-90.6), respectively. For pre-TAVR iFR, these values were 76.5% (95% CI 58.8-89.3), 90.9% (95% CI 58.7-99.8), 69.6% (95% CI 47.1-86.8), 58.8% (95% CI 42.8-73.1), and 94.1% (95% CI 70.8-99.1), respectively.

conclusionμQFR could be useful for the physiological evaluation of patients with severe AS with concomitant CAD.

Indexed as

Aortic ValveAortic Valve StenosisCoronary AngiographyFractional Flow Reserve, MyocardialSeverity of Illness IndexTranscatheter Aortic Valve ReplacementAgedAged, 80 and overCoronary Artery DiseaseCoronary VesselsFemaleHumansMalePredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesCoronary artery diseaseFractional flow reserveMurray law-based quantitative flow ratioTranscatheter aortic valve replacement

Identifiers

PMID38526753

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.