ArticleScientific reports2025
Physiology guided coronary revascularization using a hybrid RFR-FFR strategy for Non ST elevation acute coronary syndrome.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To develop a hybrid resting full-cycle ratio (RFR)- fractional flow reserve (FFR) decision-making approach for physiology-guided coronary revascularization in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). This study comprised 253 NSTE-ACS patients (with 320 diseased vessels) who underwent invasive physiological evaluation at Cangzhou Central Hospital of Hebei Medical University between September 2021 and August 2023. The FFR threshold of ≤ 0.80 served as the reference standard for diagnosing functional coronary ischemia. Through exploratory analysis, a hybrid RFR-FFR method was developed to identify the "gray zones" of RFR measurements. The thresholds were set to reflect the upper boundary of high negative predictive values and the lower boundary of high positive predictive values, ensuring over 95.00% agreement with the FFR-alone methodology. Adenosine was employed solely for lesions with RFR values falling within these predefined thresholds, while the proportion of cases that could avoid adenosine in the hybrid model was quantified. When the concordance rate between the hybrid RFR-FFR model and the FFR-alone model reached 95.31%, adenosine use decreased significantly, showing a 56.56% reduction in vasodilator administration, coupled with positive and negative predictive values of 96.28% and 93.33%, respectively. As the zone requiring adenosine broadened, the correlation between the hybrid and FFR-alone strategies was strengthened, though the proportion of adenosine-free diseased vessels showed a corresponding decrease. The width of the adenosine requirement zone was 0.04 RFR points (0.89-0.92) and 0.07 RFR points (0.87-0.93) at the 90% and 95.31% agreement (concordance rate with FFR-only classification) levels, respectively. The hybrid RFR-FFR decision-making approach has the potential to reduce adenosine dependence in some patients while maintaining a high degree of consistency with the FFR alone decision-making approach. With the expansion of the adenosine requirement zone, the correlation between the hybrid strategy and the FFR-alone strategy further improved.
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.