Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 4,260

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Guiding Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Open access
Tonino, Pim A.L., De Bruyne, Bernard, Pijls, Nico H.J., Siebert, Uwe, Ikeno, Fumiaki, van `t Veer, Marcel, Klauss, Volker, Manoharan, Ganesh, Engstrøm, Thomas, Oldroyd, Keith G., Ver Lee, Peter N., MacCarthy, Philip A., Fearon, William F.·2009·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In patients with multivessel coronary artery disease who are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary angiography is the standard method for guiding the placement of the stent. It is unclear whether routine measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR; the ratio of maximal blood flow in a stenotic artery to normal maximal flow), in addition to angiography, improves outcomes. METHODS: In 20 medical centers in the United States and Europe, we randomly assigned 1005 patients with multivessel coronary artery disease to undergo PCI with implantation of drug-eluting stents guided by angiography alone or guided by FFR measurements in addition to angiography. Before randomization, lesions requiring PCI were identified on the basis of their angiographic appearance. Patients assigned to angiography-guided PCI underwent stenting of all indicated lesions, whereas those assigned to FFR-guided PCI underwent stenting of indicated lesions only if the FFR was 0.80 or less. The primary end point was the rate of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS: The mean (+/-SD) number of indicated lesions per patient was 2.7+/-0.9 in the angiography group and 2.8+/-1.0 in the FFR group (P=0.34). The number of stents used per patient was 2.7+/-1.2 and 1.9+/-1.3, respectively (P<0.001). The 1-year event rate was 18.3% (91 patients) in the angiography group and 13.2% (67 patients) in the FFR group (P=0.02). Seventy-eight percent of the patients in the angiography group were free from angina at 1 year, as compared with 81% of patients in the FFR group (P=0.20). CONCLUSIONS: Routine measurement of FFR in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease who are undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents significantly reduces the rate of the composite end point of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization at 1 year. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00267774.)

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa0807611

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 4,260

Metadata

Authors
Tonino, P. A. L., De Bruyne, B., Pijls, N. H. J., Siebert, U., Ikeno, F., van `t Veer, M., Klauss, V., Manoharan, G., Engstrøm, T., Oldroyd, K. G., Ver Lee, P. N., MacCarthy, P. A., & Fearon, W. F.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2009-01-15
Volume
360
Issue
3
Pages
213-224
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2115416118
Cited by
4,260
References
3
FWCI
192.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Guiding Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa0807611
The paper
Tonino, P. A. L., De Bruyne, B., Pijls, N. H. J., Siebert, U., Ikeno, F., van `t Veer, M., Klauss, V., Manoharan, G., Engstrøm, T., Oldroyd, K. G., Ver Lee, P. N., MacCarthy, P. A., & Fearon, W. F. (2009). Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Guiding Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa0807611

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.