Evidence mapPaperPMID 36484813Full record

ArticleHeart and vessels2023

Validation of pressure-bounded coronary flow reserve using invasive coronary physiologic assessment.

Tatsuro Yamazaki, Yuichi Saito, Daichi Yamashita, Hideki Kitahara, Yoshio Kobayashi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Heart and vessels, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Diagnostic performance of pressure-bounded coronary flow reserve.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2024
    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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tatsuro YamazakiDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba, Chiba, 260-8677, Japan.
Yuichi SaitoDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba, Chiba, 260-8677, Japan. saitoyuichi1984@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3574-0685
Daichi YamashitaDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba, Chiba, 260-8677, Japan.
Hideki KitaharaDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba, Chiba, 260-8677, Japan.
Yoshio KobayashiDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba, Chiba, 260-8677, Japan.
Chiba University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coronary flow reserve (CFR) represents entire coronary compensatory capacity. While CFR assessment is recommended to identify patients at an increased risk of cardiovascular events and coronary microvascular dysfunction, invasive CFR measurement is often technically challenging. Although not well validated yet, pressure-bounded CFR (pbCFR) has been proposed as a simple surrogate to estimate impaired CFR. In this study, we evaluated coronary physiological characteristics of low pbCFR using detailed invasive assessment. Invasive physiological assessment including resting ratio of distal coronary pressure to aortic pressure (Pd/Pa), fractional flow reserve (FFR), resting and hyperemic mean transit time, index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR), CFR, resistive reserve ratio, and microvascular resistance reserve (MRR) was performed in 107 patients in the left anterior descending coronary artery. pbCFR was calculated only with resting Pd/Pa and FFR. Patients were divided into low pbCFR and non-low pbCFR groups. Of 107 patients, 50 (46.7%) had low pbCFR. FFR (0.90 ± 0.05 vs. 0.83 ± 0.05, p < 0.001), hyperemic mean transit time (0.27 ± 0.17 vs. 0.21 ± 0.12, p = 0.04), and IMR (20.4 ± 13.2 vs. 15.0 ± 9.1, p = 0.01) were significantly higher in the low pbCFR group than their counterpart. While directly measured CFR did not differ significantly (4.4 ± 2.3 vs. 5.1 ± 2.8, p = 0.18), MRR was lower in the low pbCFR group (5.4 ± 3.0 vs. 6.8 ± 3.8, p = 0.047). The rates of CFR < 2.0 and IMR ≥ 25 were not significantly different between the 2 groups. In conclusion, although CFR did not differ significantly, IMR and MRR were impaired in patients with low pbCFR, suggesting pbCFR as a potential surrogate of coronary microvascular function in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Coronary StenosisFractional Flow Reserve, MyocardialCoronary AngiographyCoronary VesselsHumansMicrocirculationPredictive Value of TestsVascular ResistanceCoronary flow reserveIndex of microcirculatory resistanceMicrovascular resistance reservePressure-bounded coronary flow reserve

Identifiers

PMID36484813
OpenAlexW4310957605

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.