ReviewHerz2021
[Coronary physiology in the catheter laboratory].
Review in Herz, 2021. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
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
8 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The regulation of coronary flow is mainly located in the resistance vessels of the microcirculation, so that the functional relevance of a coronary stenosis arises from the interaction between the epicardial stenosis and the downstream microcirculation. These complex interactions are precisely detectable by physiological measurements, such as the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iwFR) or the fractional flow reserve (FFR). In contrast, the purely visual assessment of the coronary anatomy could lead to misinterpretation and possibly to incorrect revascularization decisions. Consequently, in the current guidelines on myocardial revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) the measurement of iwFR and FFR has a class IA indication in intermediate stenoses with unclear hemodynamic relevance. Despite this clear recommendation, physiological measurements are not yet regularly used in the clinical routine. Besides the purely hemodynamic assessment, novel methods such as co-registration and coronary mapping can be used for virtual planning of percutaneous coronary interventions, especially in vessels with diffuse lesions and serial stenoses. Furthermore, invasive flow measurements are also helpful for risk stratification between conservative and interventional treatment of patients with acute coronary syndrome, where additional factors of flow limitation, such as coronary spasm, thrombus and acute disturbance of the microcirculation play an important role.
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.