SynthesisJournal of the American Heart Association2026
Diagnostic Performance of Non-Hyperemic Pressure Ratios Versus Fractional Flow Reserve Stratified by Coronary Artery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Individual Patient Data.
Synthesis in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2026. 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.
- The Contemporary Role of Intracoronary Physiological Assessment: Fractional Flow Reserve, Non-Hyperemic Pressure Ratios, Wireless Technologies, and Microcirculation.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
35 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the assessment of coronary physiology, non-hyperemic pressure ratios (NHPRs) provide an alternative to fractional flow reserve (FFR) without the need for hyperemic agents, reducing procedural time, side effects, and costs. However, it remains unclear whether NHPRs have similar diagnostic performance in the different coronary arteries. This study evaluates the diagnostic performance of NHPRs compared with FFR, stratified by coronary artery, in stable patients with coronary artery disease.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and individual patient-level data meta-analysis from prospective studies involving patients with intermediate to severe coronary stenosis who underwent physiological assessment with NHPRs and FFR. NHPRs included resting full-cycle ratio or instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). The diagnostic performance of NHPRs was calculated using a threshold of ≤0.89 for NHPRs with FFR ≤0.80 as the reference and by stratifying between the left anterior descending artery (LAD) and non-LAD vessels.
resultsA total of 2120 paired FFR and NHPRs (1257 resting full-cycle ratio, 863 iFR) measurements were analyzed. The LAD artery was the interrogated vessel in 67% of cases, the left circumflex artery in 15%, and the right coronary artery in 17%. The mean NHPR and FFR values were 0.80±0.17 and 0.71±0.14, respectively. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of NHPRs were 82%, 86%, and 83%. In non-LAD vessels, NHPRs had significantly lower sensitivity and accuracy, but higher specificity compared with LAD (69% versus 87%, 76% versus 86%, and 91% versus 81%, respectively,
conclusionsNHPRs demonstrated lower diagnostic performance in non-LAD vessels compared with the LAD. These results underscore the need for vessel-specific interpretation of NHPR measurements.
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.