ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Diagnostic performance of target vs. vessel μFR in stable coronary artery disease.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2025. 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.
- VERMONT non-optimised: Feasibility of angiography-derived vFFR using baseline diagnostic catheter images.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe aim to compare with the diagnostic performance of target-position quantitative flow ratio derived from Murray Law (target-μFR) and vessel quantitative flow ratio derived from Murray Law (vessel-μFR) using the fractional flow reserve (FFR) as reference standard. This study may provide more evidence for the novel clinical usage of target-μFR in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease.
methodsSix hundreds and fifty-six patients (685 lesions) with known or suspected coronary artery disease were screened for this retrospective analysis between January 2021 to March 2023. A total of 161 patients (190 lesions) underwent quantitative coronary angiography and FFR evaluations. In the final analysis, 137 patients (146 lesions) were included in this study. Both of target-μFR and vessel-μFR were compared the diagnostic performance using the FFR ≤ 0.80 as the reference standard.
resultsBoth target-μFR (R = 0.84) and vessel-μFR (R = 0.83) demonstrated a strong correlation with FFR, and both methods showed great agreement with FFR. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.937 for target-μFR and 0.936 for vessel-μFR in predicting FFR ≤ 0.80. FFR ≤ 0.80 were predicted with high sensitivity (86.44%) and specificity (88.51%) using the pre-defined cutt-off of 0.80 for target-μFR. A good diagnostic performance (sensitivity 92.98% and specificity 91.01%) was also demonstrated by vessel-μFR which the pre-defined cutt-off was 0.80.
conclusionThe target-μFR has the similar diagnostic performance with vessel-μFR. The accuracy of μFR does not seem to be affected by the selection of the measurement point. Both of the virtual models have been validated as computational tools for diagnosing ischemia and are instrumental in aiding clinical decision-making.
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.