ArticleJACC. Asia2026
Comparison of Flow Ratio Derived From IVUS With CAG in Complex Lesions: Correlation With FFR.
Article in JACC. Asia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06322355 (Comparison of Flow Ratio Derived From Intravascular Ultrasound With Coronary Angiography in Stable Coronary Artery Disease), which is not on this 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.
Comparison of Flow Ratio Derived From Intravascular Ultrasound With Coronary Angiography in Stable Coronary Artery Disease: Correlation With Fractional Flow Reserve
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate evaluation of coronary artery disease is critical for guiding treatment decisions, particularly in complex coronary lesions. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) remains the gold standard for assessing lesion-specific ischemia but is invasive and requires pharmacological hyperemia. Noninvasive alternatives, such as quantitative flow ratio (QFR) from coronary angiography and ultrasonic flow ratio (UFR) from intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), offer promising diagnostic approaches.
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of UFR and QFR against FFR in assessing complex coronary lesions.
methodsThis retrospective multicenter study included 217 patients (220 vessels) who underwent IVUS and FFR. UFR was derived from IVUS imaging, and QFR was calculated using coronary angiography data. Correlation, agreement, and diagnostic metrics (sensitivity, specificity) were analyzed, with receiver operating characteristic curves assessing accuracy.
resultsUFR demonstrated stronger correlation with FFR (r = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.74-0.84; P < 0.001) compared with QFR (r = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.60-0.74; P < 0.001). UFR also showed better diagnostic performance, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.86-0.94) compared with QFR's 0.86 (95% CI: 0.81-0.90). In complex lesions (diffuse, bifurcation, calcified), UFR consistently outperformed QFR, particularly in bifurcation and lesions heavily calcified, where QFR accuracy dropped significantly (72.5% vs 86.8%, P = 0.001).
conclusionsIn this retrospective hypothesis-generating study, UFR showed numerically higher diagnostic accuracy than QFR in complex coronary lesions. These findings suggest UFR may have potential as a complementary tool for functional assessment, but definitive conclusions about superiority require validation in larger prospective studies. (Comparison of UFR With QFR in Stable Coronary Artery Disease; NCT06322355).
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.