Ceek.jp Altmetrics (α ver.)
  1. ホーム
  2. 文献一覧: Tomoki Horie (著者)
  3. 2件

4 0 0 0 OA Excimer Laser Coronary Angioplasty and Drug-Coated Balloon Treatment for Very Late Stent Thrombosis Due to Neoatherosclerosis as Assessed by Optical Coherence Tomography

著者
Daigo Kachi Tetsumin Lee Michihito Naito Kazuki Matsuda Kodai Sayama Yuki Odanaka Mao Terui Tomoki Horie Shinichiro Okata Masashi Nagase Yuta Taomoto Toru Misawa Ryoichi Miyazaki Masakazu Kaneko Yasutoshi Nagata Toshihiro Nozato Takashi Ashikaga
出版者
The Japanese Circulation Society
雑誌
Circulation Journal (ISSN:13469843)
巻号頁・発行日
pp.CJ-23-0391, (Released:2023-09-09)
参考文献数
1

1 0 0 0 OA All Resting Physiological Indices May Not Be Equivalent ― Comparison Between the Diastolic Pressure Ratio and Resting Full-Cycle Ratio ―

著者
Masahiro Hoshino Taishi Yonetsu Tomoyo Sugiyama Yoshihisa Kanaji Rikuta Hamaya Yoshinori Kanno Masahiro Hada Masao Yamaguchi Yohei Sumino Eisuke Usui Hidenori Hirano Tomoki Horie Kai Nogami Hiroki Ueno Toru Misawa Tadashi Murai Tetsumin Lee Tsunekazu Kakuta
出版者
The Japanese Circulation Society
雑誌
Circulation Journal (ISSN:13469843)
巻号頁・発行日
pp.CJ-19-1110, (Released:2020-06-04)
参考文献数
21
被引用文献数
11
Background:Differences between resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) and diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) have not been sufficiently discussed. This study aimed to investigate if there is a difference in diagnostic performance between RFR and dPR for the functional lesion assessment and to assess if there are specific characteristics for discordant revascularization decision-makings between RFR and dPR.Methods and Results:A total of 936 intermediate lesions in 776 patients who underwent measurements of fractional flow reserve (FFR), coronary flow reserve (CFR), and the index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) were retrospectively studied. Physiological indices were measured from anonymized pressure recordings at an independent core laboratory. Both RFR and dPR measures were highly correlated (r=0.997, P<0.001), with equivalent diagnostic performance relative to FFR-based decision-makings measured by using a dichotomous threshold of 0.80 (accuracy, 79.7% vs. 80.1%, respectively, P=0.960). The rate of diagnostic discordance was 4.7% (44/936), with no RFR−/dPR+ lesions observed. An overall significant difference in FFR and CFR values were detected among RFR/dPR-based classifications. The prevalence of positive studies was significantly higher for RFR than dPR (54.3% vs. 49.6%, respectively, P=0.047) when using the cut-off value of 0.89.Conclusions:Both RFR and dPR were highly correlated, but the prevalence of positive studies was significantly different. The revascularization rate may differ significantly according to the resting index used.