Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38904958›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Angiographic Findings and Post-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Fractional Flow Reserve.

Jinlong Zhang, Doyeon Hwang, Seokhun Yang, Xinyang Hu, Joo Myung Lee, Chang-Wook Nam, Eun-Seok Shin, Joon-Hyung Doh, Masahiro Hoshino, Rikuta Hamaya and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Angiography-Derived Physiology for Coronary Artery Disease Assessment: Expert Opinion From a SCAI Roundtable.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026
    Review
  3. 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

20 authors.

Jinlong ZhangDepartment of Cardiology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Transvascular Implantation Devices, Hangzhou, China.
Doyeon HwangDepartment of Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Seokhun YangDepartment of Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Xinyang HuDepartment of Cardiology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Transvascular Implantation Devices, Hangzhou, China.
Joo Myung LeeDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Heart Vascular Stroke Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Chang-Wook NamDepartment of Cardiology, Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center, Daegu, Korea.
Eun-Seok ShinDepartment of Cardiology, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, Korea.
Joon-Hyung DohDepartment of Cardiology, Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, Goyang, Korea.
Masahiro HoshinoDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Tsuchiura Kyodo General Hospital, Ibaraki, Japan.
Rikuta HamayaDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Tsuchiura Kyodo General Hospital, Ibaraki, Japan.
Yoshihisa KanajiDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Tsuchiura Kyodo General Hospital, Ibaraki, Japan.
Tadashi MuraiDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Tsuchiura Kyodo General Hospital, Ibaraki, Japan.
Jun-Jie ZhangDivision of Cardiology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Fei YeDivision of Cardiology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Xiaobo LiDivision of Cardiology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Zhen GeDivision of Cardiology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Shao-Liang ChenDivision of Cardiology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Tsunekazu KakutaDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Tsuchiura Kyodo General Hospital, Ibaraki, Japan.
Jian'an WangDepartment of Cardiology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Transvascular Implantation Devices, Hangzhou, China.
Bon-Kwon KooDepartment of Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The associations between angiographic findings and post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) fractional flow reserve (FFR) and their clinical relevance according to residual functional disease burden have not been thoroughly investigated. Objectives: To evaluate the association of angiographic and physiologic parameters according to residual functional disease burden after drug-eluting stent implantation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study population was from the International Post-PCI FFR registry, which incorporated 4 registries from Korea, China, and Japan. Patients who underwent angiographically successful second-generation drug-eluting stent implantation and post-PCI FFR measurement were included in the analysis. The patients were divided into 3 groups according to the residual disease burden (post-PCI FFR ≤0.80 [residual ischemia], 0.81-0.86 [suboptimal], and >0.86 [optimal]). The data were collected from August 23, 2018, to June 11, 2019, and the current analysis was performed from January 11, 2022, to October 7, 2023. Exposures: Angiographic parameters and post-PCI FFR. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was target vessel failure (TVF), defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 2 years. Results: In this cohort of 2147 patients, the mean (SD) age was 64.3 (10.0) years, and 1644 patients (76.6%) were men. Based on the post-PCI physiologic status, 269 patients (12.5%) had residual ischemia, 551 (25.7%) had suboptimal results, and 1327 (61.8%) had optimal results. Angiographic parameters had poor correlations with post-PCI FFR (r < 0.20). Post-PCI FFR was isolated from all angiographic parameters in the unsupervised hierarchical cluster analysis. Post-PCI FFR was associated with the occurrence of TVF (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] per post-PCI FFR 0.01 increase, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.92-0.97]; P < .001), but angiographic parameters were not. The residual ischemia group had a significantly higher rate of TVF than the suboptimal group (AHR, 1.75 [95% CI, 1.08-2.83]; P = .02) and the optimal group (AHR, 2.94 [95% CI, 1.82-4.73]; P < .001). The TVR in the residual ischemia group was predominantly associated with TVR in the nonstented segment (14 [53.8%]), unlike the other 2 groups (3 [10.0%] in the suboptimal group and 13 [30.2%] in the optimal group). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of the International Post-PCI FFR registry, a low degree of associations were observed between angiographic and physiologic parameters after PCI. Post-PCI FFR, unlike angiographic parameters, was associated with clinical events and the distribution of clinical events. The current study supports the use of post-PCI FFR as a procedural quality metric and further prospective study is warranted.

Indexed as

Coronary AngiographyFractional Flow Reserve, MyocardialPercutaneous Coronary InterventionAgedChinaCohort StudiesCoronary Artery DiseaseDrug-Eluting StentsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRegistriesRepublic of KoreaTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID38904958
PMCPMC11193130

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.