Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 386

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Prior Myocardial Infarction

Open access
De Bruyne, Bernard, Pijls, Nico H.J., Bartunek, Jozef, Kulecki, Kemal, Bech, Jan-Willem, De Winter, Hugo, Van Crombrugge, Paul, Heyndrickx, Guy R., Wijns, William·2001·Circulation

Abstract

Background — Fractional flow reserve (FFR), an index of coronary stenosis severity, can be calculated from the ratio of hyperemic distal to proximal coronary pressure. An FFR value of 0.75 can distinguish patients with normal and abnormal noninvasive stress testing in case of normal left ventricular function. The present study aimed at investigating the value of FFR in patients with a prior myocardial infarction. Methods and Results — In 57 patients who had sustained a myocardial infarction ≥6 days earlier, myocardial perfusion single photon emission scintigraphy (SPECT) imaging and FFR were obtained before and after angioplasty. The sensitivity and specificity of the 0.75 value of FFR to detect flow maldistribution at SPECT imaging were 82% and 87%. The concordance between the FFR and SPECT imaging was 85% ( P <0.001). When only truly positive and truly negative SPECT imaging were considered, the corresponding values were 87%, 100%, and 94% ( P <0.001). Patients with positive SPECT imaging before angioplasty had a significantly lower FFR than patients with negative SPECT imaging (0.52±0.18 versus 0.67±0.16, P =0.0079) but a significantly higher left ventricular ejection fraction (63±10% versus 52±10%, P =0.0009) despite a similar degree of diameter stenosis (67±13% versus 68±16%, P =NS). A significant inverse correlation was found between LVEF and FFR ( R =0.29, P =0.049). Conclusions — The present data indicate (1) that the 0.75 cutoff value of FFR to distinguish patients with positive from patients with negative SPECT imaging is valid after a myocardial infarction and (2) that for a similar degree of stenosis, the value of FFR depends on the mass of viable myocardium.

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.104.2.157

Cites

17 of 17 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 17 references

Cited by

See all 386

Metadata

Authors
De Bruyne, B., Pijls, N. H. J., Bartunek, J., Kulecki, K., Bech, J.-W., De Winter, H., Van Crombrugge, P., Heyndrickx, G. R., & Wijns, W.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2001-07-10
Volume
104
Issue
2
Pages
157-162
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2032468742
Cited by
386
References
17
FWCI
10.56
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 in Patients With Prior Myocardial Infarction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.104.2.157
The paper
De Bruyne, B., Pijls, N. H. J., Bartunek, J., Kulecki, K., Bech, J.-W., De Winter, H., Van Crombrugge, P., Heyndrickx, G. R., & Wijns, W. (2001). Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Prior Myocardial Infarction. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.104.2.157

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.