Influence of the Amount of Myocardium Subtended by a Stenosis on Fractional Flow Reserve
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) specifically relates to the severity of a stenosis to the mass of tissue to be perfused. Accordingly, the larger the territory to be perfused, the greater the flow and the pressure gradient induced by maximal hyperemia. Although this notion may be considered intuitive, its unequivocal demonstration is still lacking. The aim of our study was to evaluate the influence of the amount of myocardium subtended to an intermediate stenosis on FFR, especially in relation to quantitative coronary angiography. METHODS AND RESULTS: The severity of each lesion was assessed by FFR and 2-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography. The amount of jeopardized myocardium was evaluated using 3 validated scores specifically adapted to this aim: the Duke Jeopardy Score (DJS), the Myocardial Jeopardy Index (MJI), and the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH) Lesion Score (ALS). The presence of a concomitant collateralized chronic total occlusion was also reported. A total of 213 intermediate coronary stenoses in 184 patients were enrolled. FFR values were correlated to minimal lumen diameter (r=0.34; P<0.0001) and diameter stenosis (r=-0.28; P<0.0001). FFR was inversely correlated with DJS, MJI, and ALS (r=-0.28, P<0.0001; r=-0.40, P<0.0001; and r=-0.34, P<0.0001). Lesions localized on proximal left anterior descending were related to significantly lower FFR values and to a higher rate of a positive FFR compared with those in distal left anterior descending, left circumflex, and right coronary arteries (0.80±0.09 versus 0.84±0.08 versus 0.88±0.09 versus 0.91±0.04; P<0.0001). The presence of a collateralized chronic total occlusion was associated with significantly lower FFR values (0.80±0.07 versus 0.85±0.09; P<0.005). At multivariate analysis MJI, minimal lumen diameter, and presence of a collateralized chronic total occlusion were confirmed as significant predictors of FFR. CONCLUSIONS: A larger amount of perfused myocardium subtended by a stenosis is associated with a higher probability that an angiographically intermediate coronary stenosis is functionally significant.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".