ArticlePostepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology2026
Ultreon 3.0 and physiological coronary assessment: initial single-center Polish experience.
Article in Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Optical coherence tomography-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR-OCT), computed as virtual flow reserve, combines anatomical and functional lesion assessment without pressure-wire manipulation or pharmacological hyperemia. Its output may depend on accurate lumen delineation and side-branch recognition. Aim: To assess the agreement between operator-reviewed FFR-OCT and wire-based FFR in routine practice, and the effect of manual segmentation correction. Material and methods: We analyzed 14 consecutive patients (19 vessels) undergoing wire-based FFR followed by OCT-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). OCT pullbacks were processed with Ultreon 3.0 software; automated FFR-OCT values were reviewed by an experienced operator with manual correction of lumen and side-branch segmentation. Comparison used Pearson's correlation, Bland-Altman analysis, and concordance in ischemia classification at the 0.80 threshold. Results: Wire-based FFR was 0.79 ±0.10. In 13 vessels with both values, automated FFR-OCT increased from 0.68 ±0.16 to 0.75 ±0.11 after operator review (mean paired difference +0.064; Wilcoxon Conclusions: Manual review of segmentation substantially changed the automated FFR-OCT result. Although operator-reviewed FFR-OCT was associated with wire-based FFR, agreement near the 0.80 threshold was imperfect. FFR-OCT may aid PCI planning but does not yet appear interchangeable with pressure-wire physiology. Larger prospective studies with prespecified, blinded image analysis are warranted.
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.