Evidence mapPaperPMID 25329922Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reviews2015

Fractional flow reserve: physiological basis, advantages and limitations, and potential gender differences.

George J Crystal, Lloyd W Klein

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Instantaneous wave-free ratio and fractional flow reserve in clinical practice.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2018
    Article
  10. Imaging to Assess Ischemic Heart Disease in Women.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2018
    Review
  11. Observational
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

George J CrystalDepartment of Anesthesiology, Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, 836 West Wellington Avenue, Chicago, IL 60657, USA. gcrystal@uic.edu.
Lloyd W Klein
Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center · USRush University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is a physiological index of the severity of a stenosis in an epicardial coronary artery, based on the pressure differential across the stenosis. Clinicians are increasingly relying on this method because it is independent of baseline flow, relatively simple, and cost effective. The accurate measurement of FFR is predicated on maximal hyperemia being achieved by pharmacological dilation of the downstream resistance vessels (arterioles). When the stenosis causes FFR to be impaired by > 20%, it is considered to be significant and to justify revascularization. A diminished hyperemic response due to microvascular dysfunction can lead to a false normal FFR value, and a misguided clinical decision. The blunted vasodilation could be the result of defects in the signaling pathways modulated (activated or inhibited) by the drug. This might involve a downregulation or reduced number of vascular receptors, endothelial impairment, or an increased activity of an opposing vasoconstricting mechanism, such as the coronary sympathetic nerves or endothelin. There are data to suggest that microvascular dysfunction is more prevalent in post-menopausal women, perhaps due to reduced estrogen levels. The current review discusses the historical background and physiological basis for FFR, its advantages and limitations, and the phenomenon of microvascular dysfunction and its impact on FFR measurements. The question of whether it is warranted to apply gender-specific guidelines in interpreting FFR measurements is addressed.

Indexed as

Sex CharacteristicsAnimalsCoronary StenosisCoronary VesselsHumansMicrovesselsSeverity of Illness IndexVascular Resistance

Identifiers

PMID25329922
PMCPMC4558352
OpenAlexW2284235505

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.