Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 412

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Long-Term Clinical Outcome After Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided Treatment in Patients With Angiographically Equivocal Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis

Open access
Hamilos, Michalis, Muller, Olivier, Cuisset, Thomas, Ntalianis, Argyrios, Chlouverakis, Gregory, Sarno, Giovanna, Nelis, Olivier, Bartunek, Jozef, Vanderheyden, Marc, Wyffels, Eric, Barbato, Emanuele, Heyndrickx, Guy R., Wijns, William, De Bruyne, Bernard·2009·Circulation

Abstract

Background— Significant left main coronary artery stenosis is an accepted indication for surgical revascularization. The potential of angiography to evaluate the hemodynamic severity of a stenosis is limited. The aims of the present study were to assess the long-term clinical outcome of patients with an angiographically equivocal left main coronary artery stenosis in whom the revascularization strategy was based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) and to determine the relationship between quantitative coronary angiography and FFR. Methods and Results— In 213 patients with an angiographically equivocal left main coronary artery stenosis, FFR measurements and quantitative coronary angiography were performed. When FFR was ≥0.80, patients were treated medically or another stenosis was treated by coronary angioplasty (nonsurgical group; n=138). When FFR was <0.80, coronary artery bypass grafting was performed (surgical group; n=75). The 5-year survival estimates were 89.8% in the nonsurgical group and 85.4% in the surgical group ( P =0.48). The 5-year event-free survival estimates were 74.2% and 82.8% in the nonsurgical and surgical groups, respectively ( P =0.50). Percent diameter stenosis at quantitative coronary angiography correlated significantly with FFR ( r =−0.38, P <0.001), but a very large scatter was observed. In 23% of patients with a diameter stenosis <50%, the left main coronary artery stenosis was hemodynamically significant by FFR. Conclusions— In patients with equivocal stenosis of the left main coronary artery, angiography alone does not allow appropriate individual decision making about the need for revascularization and often underestimates the functional significance of the stenosis. The favorable outcome of an FFR-guided strategy suggests that FFR should be assessed in such patients before a decision is made “blindly” about the need for revascularization.

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/circulationaha.109.850073

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 412

Metadata

Authors
Hamilos, M., Muller, O., Cuisset, T., Ntalianis, A., Chlouverakis, G., Sarno, G., Nelis, O., Bartunek, J., Vanderheyden, M., Wyffels, E., Barbato, E., Heyndrickx, G. R., Wijns, W., & De Bruyne, B.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2009-10-13
Volume
120
Issue
15
Pages
1505-1512
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2031438938
Cited by
412
References
0
FWCI
25.22
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: Long-Term Clinical Outcome After Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided Treatment in Patients With Angiographically Equivocal Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.109.850073
The paper
Hamilos, M., Muller, O., Cuisset, T., Ntalianis, A., Chlouverakis, G., Sarno, G., Nelis, O., Bartunek, J., Vanderheyden, M., Wyffels, E., Barbato, E., Heyndrickx, G. R., Wijns, W., & De Bruyne, B. (2009). Long-Term Clinical Outcome After Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided Treatment in Patients With Angiographically Equivocal Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.109.850073

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.