The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Pressure-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve to Assess Serial Epicardial Stenoses: Theoretical Basis and Animal Validation
Abstract
Background —Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is an index of stenosis severity validated for isolated stenoses. This study develops the theoretical basis and experimentally validates equations for predicting FFR of sequential stenoses separately. Methods and Results —For 2 stenoses in series, equations were derived to predict FFR (FFR pred ) of each stenosis separately (ie, as if the other one were removed) from arterial pressure (P a ), pressure between the 2 stenoses (P m ), distal coronary pressure (P d ), and coronary occlusive pressure (P w ). In 5 dogs with 2 stenoses of varying severity in the left circumflex coronary artery, FFR pred was compared with FFR app (ratio of the pressure just distal to that just proximal to each stenoses) and to FFR true (ratio of the pressures distal to proximal to each stenosis but after removal of the other one) in case of fixed distal and varying proximal stenoses (n=15) and in case of fixed proximal and varying distal stenoses (n=20). The overestimation of FFR true by FFR app was larger than that of FFR true by FFR pred (0.070±0.007 versus 0.029±0.004, P <0.01 for fixed distal stenoses, and 0.114±0.01 versus 0.036±0.004, P <0.01 for fixed proximal stenoses). This overestimation of FFR true by FFR app was larger for fixed proximal than for fixed distal stenoses. Conclusions —The interaction between 2 stenoses is such that FFR of each lesion separately cannot be calculated by the equation for isolated stenoses (P d /P a during hyperemia) applied to each separately but can be predicted by more complete equations taking into account P a , P m , P d , and P w .
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
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Measurement of Fractional Flow Reserve to Assess the Functional Severity of Coronary-Artery Stenoses
Pijls, N. H. J., de Bruyne, B., Peels, K., van der Voort, P. H., Bonnier, H. J. R. M., Bartunek, J., & Koolen, J. J. (1996) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199606273342604 · Cited by 2,321
Self-citationPijls, N. H., van Son, J. A., Kirkeeide, R. L., De Bruyne, B., & Gould, K. L. (1993) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.87.4.1354 · Cited by 1,183
Self-citationVanoverschelde, J. L., Wijns, W., Depré, C., Essamri, B., Heyndrickx, G. R., Borgers, M., Bol, A., & Melin, J. A. (1993) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.87.5.1513 · Cited by 707
Self-citationBech, G. J. W., De Bruyne, B., Bonnier, H. J. R. M., Bartunek, J., Wijns, W., Peels, K., Heyndrickx, G. R., Koolen, J. J., & Pijls, N. H. J. (1998) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/s0735-1097(98)00050-3 · Cited by 199
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- De Bruyne, B., Pijls, N. H. J., Heyndrickx, G. R., Hodeige, D., Kirkeeide, R., & Gould, K. L.
- Venue
- Circulation
- Published
- 2000-04-18
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 1840-1847
- ISSN
- 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4539
- OpenAlex
- W2172178391
- Cited by
- 266
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 6.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Pressure-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve to Assess Serial Epicardial Stenoses: Theoretical Basis and Animal Validation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.101.15.1840
- The paper
- De Bruyne, B., Pijls, N. H. J., Heyndrickx, G. R., Hodeige, D., Kirkeeide, R., & Gould, K. L. (2000). Pressure-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve to Assess Serial Epicardial Stenoses: Theoretical Basis and Animal Validation. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.101.15.1840
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.