SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Clinical and Experimental Investigations / 2026 / Cilt: 4 Sayı: 2

Comparison between fractional flow reserve and visual assessment by multiple observers in patients with moderate coronary artery lesions

Orta ciddiyette koroner arter lezyonları bulunan hastalarda, fraksiyonel akım rezervi ve çoklu gözlemci ile yapılan görsel değerlendirmenin karşılaştırılması

Rida Berilğen
Nihan Kahya Eren
Faruk Ertaş
Halit Acet
Ali Hikmet Kırdök
Erdal Gürsul
Sefa Nuri Akdemir
Özgen Şafak
Pages
184–188
Publication Date
2013-06-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

When one of the observers called a lesion “se­vere” and the lesion was assumed as “severe”, detection of a severe lesion was 83.3% (p=0.017); if all of the ob­servers agreed that the lesion was “non-severe” then true detection of a non-severe lesion was 90.5% (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: Our aim was to evaluate whether more than one observer or fractional flow reserve has the same re­sults in assessing coronary lesion severity in intermediate lesions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results: 8 of 46 patients were (17.4%) female and 38 of 46 were (82,6%) male.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:When one of the observers called a lesion “se­vere” and the lesion was assumed as “severe”, detection of a severe lesion was 83.3% (p=0.017); if all of the ob­servers agreed that the lesion was “non-severe” then true detection of a non-severe lesion was 90.5% (p
🔬Design:Makale
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Fraksiyonel akım rezervi · görsel de&shy · ğerlendirme

Abstract

Objectives: Our aim was to evaluate whether more than one observer or fractional flow reserve has the same re­sults in assessing coronary lesion severity in intermediate lesions. Methods: Our hospital\'s database was searched for frac­tional flow reserve procedures and then these patient\'s lesions were assessed visually by three experienced in­terventional cardiologist. Results: 8 of 46 patients were (17.4%) female and 38 of 46 were (82,6%) male. Average age was 61±11 years (Male: 60±11 / Female: 70±7 years). One observer could only detect 66.7% of severe lesions and 76.2% of non-severe lesions. When two observers agreed about lesion sever­ity, true detection of severe lesions was (max) 76.7%, and true detection of non-severe lesions was (max) 66.7%, so a decrease in true detection of non-severe lesions was observed. When one of the observers called a lesion “se­vere” and the lesion was assumed as “severe”, detection of a severe lesion was 83.3% (p=0.017); if all of the ob­servers agreed that the lesion was “non-severe” then true detection of a non-severe lesion was 90.5% (p

Özet

Amaç: Koroner arter hastalığında orta dereceli lezyonla­rın ciddiyetinin değerlendirilmesinde, çok gözlemci ile ya­pılan değerlendirmenin fraksiyonel akım rezervi ile benzer sonuçlar elde edip edemeyeceği belirlenmek istenmiştir. Yöntemler: Hastanemizin veritabanı fraksiyonel akım re­zervi işlemleri açısından tarandı ve hastalara ait lezyonlar üç deneyimli girişimsel kardiyolog tarafından görsel ola­rak değerlendirildi. Bulgular: 46 olgunun 8\'i (%17,4) kadın ve 38\'i (%82,6) erkekti. Yaş ortalaması 61±11 yıl idi. (Erkek: 60±11 / Ka­dın: 70±7 yıl). Tek gözlemcinin ciddi lezyonların ancak %66,7\'sini saptayabildiği, ciddi olmayan lezyonların ise en fazla %76,2\'sini saptayabildiği gözlendi. İki gözlemci­nin ortak kararına bakıldığında ise ciddi lezyonları sap­tama olasılığının maksimum %76,7, ciddi olmayan lez­yonları saptama olasılığının ise maksimum %66,7 olduğu saptandı, yani iki gözlemcinin ortak kararı ile ciddi olma­yan lezyonların değerlendirilmesinde yanlışlık olasılığının arttığı görüldü. Üç gözlemciden biri lezyona ciddi dediğin­de ciddi çıkma ihtimalinin %83,3 e yükseldiği (p=0,017), üç gözlemcinin de ciddi değil olarak değerlendirdiği lez­yonların ciddi çıkmama olasılığının %90,5\'e yükseldiği (p

🔖

Cite This Article

Berilğen, R., Eren, N. K., Ertaş, F., Acet, H., Kırdök, A. H., Gürsul, E., Akdemir, S. N., Şafak, Ö. (2013). Comparison between fractional flow reserve and visual assessment by multiple observers in patients with moderate coronary artery lesions. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Investigations, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 2, 184–188. https://doi.org/10.5799/ahinjs.01.2013.02.0262

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (6)

  1. Pijls NH, Fearon WF, Tonino PA, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutane- ous coronary intervention in patients with multives- sel coronary artery disease: 2-year follow-up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study. JACC 2010;56:177- 184.
  2. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease-2. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:991- 1001.
  3. Baim, Donald S, editors. Grossman’s Cardiac Cath- eterization, Angiography and Intervention, 7th Edition. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2006.
  4. Brueren BR, Mast EG, Suttorp MJ, et al. How good are experienced cardiologists at predicting the hemo- dynamic severity of coronary stenoses when taking fractional flow reserve as the gold standard. Int J Car- diovasc Imaging 2002;18:73-76.
  5. Lindstaedt M, Spiecker M, Perings C, et al. How good are experienced interventional cardiologists at pre- dicting the functional significance of intermediate or equivocal left main coronary artery stenoses? Int J Cardiol 2007;120:254-261.
  6. Fischer JJ, Samady H, McPherson JA, et al. Com- parison between visual assessment and quantitative angiography versus fractional flow reserve for native coronary narrowings of moderate severity. Am J Car- diol 2002;90:210-215.