↓ Skip to main content

Comparative Study between Perfusion Changes and Positive Findings on Coronary Flow Reserve

Overview of attention for article published in Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparative Study between Perfusion Changes and Positive Findings on Coronary Flow Reserve
Published in
Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, December 2016
DOI 10.5935/abc.20160184
Pubmed ID
Authors

Costantino Roberto Frack Costantini, Jose Antonio Ramires, Costantino Ortiz Costantini, Marcos Antonio Denk, Sergio Gustavo Tarbine, Marcelo de Freitas Santos, Daniel Aníbal Zanuttini, Carmen Weigert Silveira, Admar Moraes de Souza, Rafael Michel de Macedo

Abstract

Functional assessment of coronary artery obstruction is used in cardiology practice to correlate anatomic obstructions with flow decrease. Among such assessments, the study of the coronary fractional flow reserve (FFR) has become the most widely used. To evaluate the correlation between FFR and findings of ischemia obtained by noninvasive methods including stress echocardiography and nuclear medicine and the presence of critical coronary artery obstruction. Retrospective study of cases treated with systematized and standardized procedures for coronary disease between March 2011 and August 2014. We included 96 patients with 107 critical coronary obstructions (> 50% in the coronary trunk and/or ≥ 70% in other segments) estimated by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and intracoronary ultrasound (ICUS). All cases presented ischemia in one of the noninvasive studies. All 96 patients presented ischemia (100%) in one of the functional tests. On FFR study with adenosine 140 g/kg/min, 52% of the cases had values ≤ 0.80. On correlation analysis for FFR ≤ 0.80, the evaluation of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, accuracy, and ROC curve in relation to the stenosis degree and length, and presence of ischemia, no significant values or strong correlation were observed. Coronary FFR using a cut-off value of 0.80 showed no correlation with noninvasive ischemia tests in patients with severe coronary artery obstructions on QCA and ICUS. A avaliação funcional da obstrução arterial coronariana é empregada na prática cardiológica para correlacionar a obstrução anatômica e a queda de fluxo. Dentre as formas de avaliação, o estudo da reserva fracionada de fluxo (RFF) coronariano se tornou a mais utilizada. Avaliar a correlação entre a RFF com achados de isquemia, obtidos por métodos não invasivos como a ecocardiografia de estresse ou medicina nuclear, e a presença de obstrução crítica da artéria coronária. Estudo retrospectivo de casos tratados com procedimentos sistematizados e padronizados para doença coronariana entre março de 2011 e agosto de 2014. Foram incluídos 96 pacientes com 107 obstruções coronarianas críticas (> 50% no tronco da coronária e/ou ≥ 70% nos demais segmentos) estimadas por angiografia coronariana quantitativa (ACQ) e ultrassonografia intracoronariana (USIC). Todos os casos apresentaram isquemia em um dos estudos não invasivos. Ao estudo da RFF com adenosina na dose de 140 µg/kg/min, valores ≤ 0,80 foram encontrados em 52% dos casos. Na análise de correlação para RFF ≤ 0,80, avaliando-se sensibilidade/especificidade, valor preditivo positivo/negativo, acurácia e curva ROC em relação ao grau de estenose, extensão da estenose e presença de isquemia, não foram observados valores de significância ou de forte correlação. A RFF coronariana a um valor de corte de 0,80 não apresentou correlação com testes não invasivos de isquemia em pacientes com obstruções coronarianas graves à ACQ e USIC.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 17%
Student > Master 2 17%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Researcher 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 58%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 8%
Unknown 4 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 September 2023.
All research outputs
#7,778,510
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia
#203
of 1,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,310
of 420,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia
#4
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,210 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,300 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.