↓ Skip to main content

Diabetes does not impact the diagnostic performance of contrast-based fractional flow reserve: insights from the CONTRAST study

Overview of attention for article published in Cardiovascular Diabetology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Diabetes does not impact the diagnostic performance of contrast-based fractional flow reserve: insights from the CONTRAST study
Published in
Cardiovascular Diabetology, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12933-016-0494-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giuseppe Gargiulo, Eugenio Stabile, Marco Ferrone, Emanuele Barbato, Frederik M. Zimmermann, Julien Adjedj, Barry Hennigan, Mitsuaki Matsumura, Nils P. Johnson, William F. Fearon, Allen Jeremias, Bruno Trimarco, Giovanni Esposito

Abstract

Adenosine-free coronary pressure wire metrics have been proposed to test the functional significance of coronary artery lesions, but it is unexplored whether their diagnostic performance might be altered in patients with diabetes. We performed a post-hoc analysis of the CONTRAST study, which prospectively enrolled an international cohort of patients undergoing routine fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment for standard indications. Paired, repeated measurements of all physiology metrics (Pd/Pa, iFR, contrast-based FFR, and FFR) were made. A central core laboratory analyzed blinded pressure tracings in a standardized fashion. Of 763 subjects enrolled at 12 international centers, 219 (29%) had diabetes. The two groups were well-balanced for age, clinical presentation (stable or unstable), coronary vessel studied, volume and type of intracoronary contrast, and volume of intracoronary adenosine. A binary threshold of cFFR ≤ 0.83 produced an accuracy superior to both Pd/Pa and iFR when compared with FFR ≤ 0.80 in the absence of significant interaction with diabetes status; indeed, accuracy in subgroups of patients with or without diabetes was similar for cFFR (86.7 vs 85.4% respectively; p = 0.76), iFR (84.2 vs 80.0%, p = 0.29) and Pd/Pa (81.3 vs 78.9%, p = 0.55). There was no significant heterogeneity between patients with or without diabetes in terms of sensitivity and specificity of all metrics. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was largest for cFFR compared with Pd/Pa and iFR which were equivalent (cFFR 0.961 and 0.928; Pd/Pa 0.916 and 0.870; iFR 0.911 and 0.861 in diabetic and non-diabetic patients respectively). cFFR provides superior diagnostic performance compared with Pd/Pa or iFR for predicting FFR irrespective of diabetes (clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02184117).

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 20%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 53%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Psychology 1 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Unknown 4 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 11 October 2018.
All research outputs
#4,578,212
of 14,821,238 outputs
Outputs from Cardiovascular Diabetology
#252
of 842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,892
of 259,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cardiovascular Diabetology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,821,238 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 259,239 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 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them