The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Correlations Between Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular Ultrasound in Patients With an Ambiguous Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis
Open accessAbstract
Background— Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) is being used to assess the significance of a left main coronary artery stenosis (LMCS). However, the cutoff values of IVUS parameters at which to predict a fractional flow reserve (FFR) of 0.75 are unknown. Methods and Results— In 55 patients with an angiographically ambiguous LMCS, a pressure guidewire was used to calculate FFR, and IVUS parameters were calculated after automatic pullback. FFR averaged 0.86±0.13 (range, 0.55 to 1.0). IVUS minimum lumen diameter (MLD), minimum lumen area (MLA), cross-sectional narrowing (CSN), and area stenosis (AS) were 3.8±0.61 mm, 7.65±2.9 mm 2 , 59±13%, and 47±19%, respectively. Regression analysis demonstrated strong correlations between FFR and MLD ( r =0.79, P <0.0001) as well as between FFR and MLA ( r =0.74, P <0.0001). There were inverse, moderate correlations between FFR and CSN ( r =0.69, P <0.0001), followed by those between FFR and AS ( r =0.54, P <0.0001). Compared with FFR as the “gold standard,” an MLD of 2.8 mm had the highest sensitivity and specificity (93% and 98%, respectively) for determining the significance of an LMCS, followed by an MLA of 5.9 mm 2 (93% and 95%, respectively). Based on an FFR <0.75 and an FFR ≥0.75, the 38-month survival and event-free survival estimates (EFSEs) were both 100% and 100% versus 90%, respectively ( P =NS). Conclusions— We conclude that (1) an IVUS MLD and MLA of 2.8 mm and 5.9 mm 2 , respectively, strongly predict the physiological significance of an LMCS and (2) among patients with an LMCS, an FFR of 0.75 is a strong predictor of survival and EFSE.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease
Task Force Members, Montalescot, G., Sechtem, U., Achenbach, S., Andreotti, F., Arden, C., Budaj, A., Bugiardini, R., Crea, F., Cuisset, T., et al. (2013) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/eht296 · Cited by 4,510
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Functionally Nonsignificant Stenosis
Pijls, N. H. J., van Schaardenburgh, P., Manoharan, G., Boersma, E., Bech, J.-W., van’t Veer, M., Bär, F., Hoorntje, J., Koolen, J., Wijns, W., et al. (2007) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.01.087 · Cited by 1,516
Lawton, J. S., Tamis-Holland, J. E., Bangalore, S., Bates, E. R., Beckie, T. M., Bischoff, J. M., Bittl, J. A., Cohen, M. G., DiMaio, J. M., Don, C. W., et al. (2022) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000001038 · Cited by 829
In-Stent Restenosis in the Drug-Eluting Stent Era
Dangas, G. D., Claessen, B. E., Caixeta, A., Sanidas, E. A., Mintz, G. S., & Mehran, R. (2010) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2010.07.028 · Cited by 803
Johnson, T. W., Räber, L., di Mario, C., Bourantas, C., Jia, H., Mattesini, A., Gonzalo, N., de la Torre Hernandez, J. M., Prati, F., Koskinas, K., et al. (2019) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz332 · Cited by 305
Metadata
- Authors
- Jasti, V., Ivan, E., Yalamanchili, V., Wongpraparut, N., & Leesar, M. A.
- Venue
- Circulation
- Published
- 2004-11-02
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 2831-2836
- ISSN
- 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4539
- OpenAlex
- W2150380245
- Cited by
- 410
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.81
- 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: Correlations Between Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular Ultrasound in Patients With an Ambiguous Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.0000146338.62813.e7
- The paper
- Jasti, V., Ivan, E., Yalamanchili, V., Wongpraparut, N., & Leesar, M. A. (2004). Correlations Between Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular Ultrasound in Patients With an Ambiguous Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.0000146338.62813.e7
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.