ReviewEuropean cardiology2016
Fractional Flow Reserve Assessment of Coronary Artery Stenosis.
Review in European cardiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intravascular Imaging Versus Physiology Assessment for Intermediate Lesions During PCI.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence-enhanced detection of subclinical coronary artery disease in athletes: diagnostic performance and limitations.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2024Article
- Uncertainty quantification of computational fluid dynamics-based predictions for fractional flow reserve and wall shear stress of the idealized stenotic coronary.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Functional Assessment of Coronary Artery Lesions-Old and New Kids on the Block.The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective proof of focal lesions is mandatory, and the best invasive method of physiological testing is fractional flow r eserve (FFR). The increased trans-stenotic gradient is measured via the guiding catheter and pressure transducer on a 0.014" coronary wire at maximal hyperaemia induced by adenosine. Patients with a FFR of less than 0.8 should undergo myocardial revascularisation by percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft, particularly if the proximal and middle segments of the main coronary arteries and large side-branches are affected; there is no prognostic revascularisation benefit in patients with moderate stenoses and FFR greater than 0.80. FFR assessment of coronary lesions is superior to other invasive morphological studies, such as intracoronary ultrasound or optical coherence tomography. Its use in non-culprit vessels in acute coronary syndromes is currently under scrutiny. Recent advances in computed tomographic technique allow non-invasive assessment of FFR, but clinical validation has yet to be obtained.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.