Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 911

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Fractional Flow Reserve to Determine the Appropriateness of Angioplasty in Moderate Coronary Stenosis: A Randomized Trial

Open access
Bech, G. Jan Willem, De Bruyne, Bernard, Pijls, Nico H.J., de Muinck, Ebo D., Hoorntje, Jan C.A., Escaned, Javier, Stella, Pieter R., Boersma, Eric, Bartunek, Jozef, Koolen, Jacques J., Wijns, William·2001·Circulation

Abstract

Background —PTCA of a coronary stenosis without documented ischemia at noninvasive stress testing is often performed, but its benefit is unproven. Coronary pressure–derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) is an invasive index of stenosis severity that is a reliable substitute for noninvasive stress testing. A value of 0.75 identifies stenoses with hemodynamic significance. Methods and Results —In 325 patients for whom PTCA was planned and who did not have documented ischemia, FFR of the stenosis was measured. If FFR was >0.75, patients were randomly assigned to deferral (deferral group; n=91) or performance (performance group; n=90) of PTCA. If FFR was <0.75, PTCA was performed as planned (reference group; n=144). Clinical follow-up was obtained at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. Event-free survival was similar between the deferral and performance groups (92% versus 89% at 12 months and 89% versus 83% at 24 months) but was significantly lower in the reference group (80% at 12 months and 78% at 24 months). In addition, the percentage of patients free from angina was similar between the deferral and performance groups (49% versus 50% at 12 months and 70% versus 51% at 24 months) but was significantly higher in the reference group (67% at 12 and 80% at 24 months). Conclusions —In patients with a coronary stenosis without evidence of ischemia, coronary pressure–derived FFR identifies those who will benefit from PTCA.

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 · 10.1161/01.cir.103.24.2928

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.

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

Cited by

See all 911

Metadata

Authors
Bech, G. J. W., De Bruyne, B., Pijls, N. H. J., de Muinck, E. D., Hoorntje, J. C. A., Escaned, J., Stella, P. R., Boersma, E., Bartunek, J., Koolen, J. J., & Wijns, W.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2001-06-19
Volume
103
Issue
24
Pages
2928-2934
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W1619893722
Cited by
911
References
0
FWCI
17.39
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 to Determine the Appropriateness of Angioplasty in Moderate Coronary Stenosis: A Randomized Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.103.24.2928
The paper
Bech, G. J. W., De Bruyne, B., Pijls, N. H. J., de Muinck, E. D., Hoorntje, J. C. A., Escaned, J., Stella, P. R., Boersma, E., Bartunek, J., Koolen, J. J., & Wijns, W. (2001). Fractional Flow Reserve to Determine the Appropriateness of Angioplasty in Moderate Coronary Stenosis: A Randomized Trial. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.103.24.2928

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.