↓ Skip to main content

Hybrid Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio–Fractional Flow Reserve versus Fractional Flow Reserve in the Real World

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Hybrid Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio–Fractional Flow Reserve versus Fractional Flow Reserve in the Real World
Published in
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fcvm.2017.00035
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kara Shuttleworth, Kristina Smith, Jonathan Watt, Jamie A. L. Smith, Stephen J. Leslie

Abstract

The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is a novel method to assess the ischemic potential of coronary artery stenoses. Clinical trial data have shown that iFR has acceptable diagnostic agreement with fractional flow reserve (FFR), the reference standard for the functional assessment of coronary stenoses. This study compares iFR measurements with FFR measurements in a real world, single-center setting. Instantaneous wave-free ratio and FFR were measured in 50 coronary artery lesions in 42 patients, with FFR ≤ 0.8 classified as functionally significant. An iFR-only technique, using a treatment cut-off value, iFR ≤ 0.89, provided a classification agreement of 84% with FFR ≤ 0.80. Use of a hybrid iFR-FFR technique, incorporating FFR measurement for lesions within the iFR gray zone of 0.86-0.93, would improve classification agreement with FFR to 94%, with diagnosis achieved without the need for hyperemia in 57% patients. This study in a real-world setting demonstrated good classification agreement between iFR and FFR. Use of a hybrid iFR-FFR technique would achieve high diagnostic accuracy while minimizing adenosine use, compared with routine FFR.

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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 31%
Researcher 2 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 3 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 46%
Psychology 1 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 8%
Engineering 1 8%
Unknown 4 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 May 2017.
All research outputs
#18,552,700
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
#3,221
of 6,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,115
of 316,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
#19
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,875 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 316,100 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.