ArticleScientific reports2024
Diagnostic performance of the quantitative flow ratio and CT-FFR for coronary lesion-specific ischemia.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic Performance of Angiography-Derived Quantitative Flow Ratio: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- Non-invasive estimation of coronary resistance and compliance: Prospective diagnostic study vs. angiography.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Quantitative Flow Ratio-Guided vs. Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of One-Year Clinical Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has become the gold standard for evaluating coronary lesion-specific ischemia. However, FFR is an invasive method that may cause possible complications in the coronary artery and requires expensive equipment, which limits its use. Promising noninvasive diagnostic methods, such as computed tomography angiography-derived FFR (CT-FFR) and the quantitative flow ratio (QFR), have been proposed. In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of the QFR and CT-FFR in predicting coronary lesion-specific ischemia, with the FFR serving as the reference standard. Patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease who underwent coronary CT angiography revealing 30-90% diameter stenosis in the main coronary artery (≥ 2.0 mm reference diameter) were enrolled. The FFR was measured during invasive coronary angiography (within 15 days after coronary CT angiography). An FFR ≤ 0.8 was the reference standard for coronary lesion-specific ischemia. A total of 103 vessels from 92 consecutive patients (aged 59.8 ± 9.2 years; 60.9% were men) were evaluated. The diagnostic performance of a QFR ≤ 0.80 for predicting coronary lesion-specific ischemia demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity (92.2%, 87.2%, and 96.4%, respectively), with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.987 (P < 0.0001). The diagnostic performance of a CT-FFR ≤ 0.80 for predicting coronary lesion-specific ischemia also demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity (96.1%, 95.7%, and 96.4%, respectively), with an AUC of 0.967 (P < 0.0001). However, there was no significant difference in the AUC between a QFR ≤ 0.80 and a CT-FFR ≤ 0.80 for predicting coronary lesion-specific ischemia (P = 0.319). There was an excellent correlation between the QFR and FFR (r = 0.856, P < 0.0001). The CT-FFR and FFR also showed a good direct correlation (r = 0.816, P < 0.0001). The QFR and CT-FFR are strongly correlated with the FFR and can provide excellent clinical diagnostic performance for coronary lesion-specific ischemia detection.
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.