Header Logo

Connection

Arnold Seto to Humans

Back to Details
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Arnold Seto has written about Humans.
Arnold Seto
Connection Strength
8.029
Humans
  1. Does PPG, the Other Dimension to FFR, Better Predict Post-PCI Results? Circulation. 2024 Aug 20; 150(8):598-599.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.105
  2. Suture-Mediated Vascular Closure for?Intermediate-Bore Femoral?Venous?Access. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2024 Aug; 10(8):1837-1839.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.105
  3. The Hype Cycle in Interventional Cardiology and Quantitative Flow Ratio. Am J Cardiol. 2024 Aug 15; 225:35-36.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.104
  4. Microvascular Resistance Reserve and?the?STEMI Patient: Putting a Finer Point on the CFR Pencil? JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2024 May 27; 17(10):1228-1230.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.103
  5. How much does CMD cost before it is diagnosed? Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2024 Sep; 66:61-62.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.103
  6. Virtual FFR From Optical Coherence Tomography: A 1-Stop Shop for PCI Guidance? Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2024 Apr; 17(4):e014077.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.102
  7. Does ejection fraction matter in choosing between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass surgery? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2024 Apr; 103(5):826-827.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.102
  8. Is Coronary Physiology Assessment Valid in Special Circumstances?: Aortic Stenosis, Atrial Fibrillation, Left Ventricular Hypertrophy, and Other. Cardiol Clin. 2024 Feb; 42(1):21-29.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.101
  9. Editorial: Angiography is not enough! Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2024 Mar; 60:72-73.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.099
  10. Exploring the Impact of End-Stage Renal Disease on Fractional Flow Reserve. Am J Cardiol. 2023 11 15; 207:505-506.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.099
  11. The thoracic duct: The final frontier for intervention? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2023 05; 101(6):1170-1171.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.096
  12. Can We Predict Who Will Have Angina Relief From Percutaneous Coronary Intervention? Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2023 04; 16(4):e013020.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.095
  13. Cut, score, press, shock, or ablate? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2023 05; 101(6):975-977.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.095
  14. Better together? Maybe not with CTO-PCI. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2023 03; 101(4):828-829.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.095
  15. Understanding the mechanism of improved CFR after TAVR/SAVR - the importance of basal flow. EuroIntervention. 2023 02 20; 18(14):1129-1130.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.095
  16. Can Automating the SYNTAX Score Move Practice Beyond the Angiogram Alone? JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 12 26; 15(24):2487-2489.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.094
  17. The future of angiography: Estimates of FFR pre- and post-PCI. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 12; 100(7):1218-1219.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.093
  18. Driving quality improvement with nudges: True interventions in cardiology. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 11; 100(6):948-949.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.093
  19. Is Coronary Physiology Assessment Valid in Special Circumstances?: Aortic Stenosis, Atrial Fibrillation, Left Ventricular Hypertrophy, and Other. Interv Cardiol Clin. 2023 01; 12(1):21-29.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.093
  20. Does Diabetes Affect Angiographically Derived (QFR) Translesional Physiology?: Looking at the FAVOR III Diabetic Subset. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 09 27; 80(13):1265-1267.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.092
  21. Management of Coronary Complications. Interv Cardiol Clin. 2022 10; 11(4):445-453.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.092
  22. Should doctors replace machines in prehospital electrocardiogram interpretation? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 09; 100(3):304-305.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.092
  23. Closing the loop in cath lab communication: Avoiding the tower of babble. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 06; 99(7):1963-1964.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.090
  24. Should CFR Be Routinely Measured in the Cath Lab? JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 05 23; 15(10):1057-1059.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.090
  25. Radial Hemostasis Is Facilitated With a Potassium Ferrate Hemostatic Patch: The STAT2 Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 04 25; 15(8):810-819.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.090
  26. Ejection Fraction as the Key to Improvement in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Outcomes. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 04; 15(4):e012000.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.089
  27. Physiologic Lesion Assessment to Optimize Multivessel Disease. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2022 05; 24(5):541-550.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.089
  28. Clinical risk overlaps both bare metal and drug-eluting stents. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 02; 99(3):552-553.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.088
  29. A stitch in time saves? uncontrollable blood loss. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 09; 98(3):578-579.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.086
  30. Acute kidney injury in cardiogenic shock: The powerful distortions of survivor bias. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 08 01; 98(2):341-342.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.085
  31. Intravascular ultrasound: Beneficial even with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 07 01; 98(1):10-11.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.085
  32. Heparin, compression, and radial artery occlusion: Less is more. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 06 01; 97(7):1377-1378.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.084
  33. Post-dilation in ST-elevation MI patients makes sense anatomically, but does it improve physiology? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 06 01; 97(7):1318-1319.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.084
  34. QFR accuracy and Pd/pa:FFR discordance: Too much inside baseball or novel physiologic insight? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 04 01; 97(5):833-835.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.083
  35. FFRCT : Getting better all the time (but not there yet). Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 03; 97(4):623-624.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.083
  36. How strong is the warranty of a negative FFR? Comment on long-term outcome after deferred revascularization due to negative fractional flow reserve in intermediate coronary lesions by Weerts et al. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 02 01; 97(2):257-258.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.082
  37. Percutaneous axillary access: A call to arms. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 12; 96(7):1489-1490.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.081
  38. Predicting post stent fractional flow reserve virtually from quantitative flow ratio - Can we really get there from here? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 11; 96(6):1154-1155.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.081
  39. Comparing QFR and FFR in small vessels-Expanding the spectrum of use. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 10 01; 96(4):752-754.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.080
  40. Collaterals in STEMI patients: An uncommon but critical lifeline. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 09 01; 96(3):534-535.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.080
  41. Limitations of Long-Term Mortality as a Clinical Trial Endpoint: Time Wounds All Healing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 08 25; 76(8):900-902.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.080
  42. Effects of intraaortic balloon counterpulsation on translesional coronary hemodynamics. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 10 01; 96(4):871-877.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.079
  43. Transseptal Puncture Guided by Electroanatomic Mapping: A Novel Fluoroscopically and Echocardiographically Free?Method. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 05 25; 13(10):1233-1235.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.078
  44. Is There a Paradox of FFR Outcomes in Diabetic Patients? Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020 07; 21(7):903-904.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.078
  45. Do hemodynamics matter in the treatment of patients with submassive pulmonary emboli? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 04 01; 95(5):E165-E167.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.077
  46. Better measurement repeatability of FFR than CFR: Role of the human error factor. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 11 01; 94(5):684-685.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.075
  47. Vive la difference: Factors and mechanisms predicting discrepancy between iFR and FFR. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 09 01; 94(3):364-366.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.075
  48. High FFR strongly predicts arterial graft dysfunction: pure benefit in a pure population? Eur Heart J. 2019 08 01; 40(29):2429-2431.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.074
  49. Evaluation of the severity of mitral stenosis in patient with pulmonary hypertension: Role of exercise hemodynamics. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Aug 01; 94(2):301-307.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.074
  50. What patients want. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 06 01; 93(7):1244-1245.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.073
  51. The calculus of preloading antiplatelet agents in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Does it make a difference? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 03 01; 93(4):602-603.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.072
  52. Every TAVR deserves a cardiac implantable electronic device specialist. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 02 15; 93(3):E200-E201.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.072
  53. Clinical Outcomes Data for Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Interv Cardiol Clin. 2019 04; 8(2):121-129.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.072
  54. Radial haemostasis is facilitated with a potassium ferrate haemostatic patch: the Statseal with TR Band assessment trial (STAT). EuroIntervention. 2018 Dec 07; 14(11):e1236-e1242.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.071
  55. Caution! You're approaching a gray zone: FFR outcomes and the role of CFR and IMR. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 11 15; 92(6):1088-1089.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.071
  56. Newsflash, PCI Works: Stenting Stenoses Increases Coronary Blood Flow During Exercise and Reduces Ischemia. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 08 28; 72(9):984-986.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.069
  57. Bifurcation lesion assessment with advanced quantitative coronary angiography: A method still wanting. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 06; 91(7):1271-1272.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.068
  58. A Perspective on Physiologic Assessment of Coronary Stenoses in Series: Methods, Myths, and Best Practices? JAMA Cardiol. 2018 05 01; 3(5):368-370.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.068
  59. Length of stay following percutaneous coronary intervention: An expert consensus document update from the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 10 01; 92(4):717-731.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.068
  60. Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Pressure Pullback With Virtual Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Planning: Seeing the Future of Coronary Interventions? JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 04 23; 11(8):768-770.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.068
  61. Early stent thrombosis: Nearly gone, but never forgotten. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 04 01; 91(5):849-850.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.068
  62. Is Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio a New Standard of Care for Physiologic Assessment of Coronary Lesions? More Questions Than Answers. Circulation. 2017 12 12; 136(24):2295-2297.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.066
  63. Deferred lesion failure in diabetes: A truly bad actor. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 12 01; 90(7):1084-1085.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.066
  64. Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio?Outcomes?and the Epistemology?of?Ischemia. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 12 26; 10(24):2511-2513.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.066
  65. Agreement and Differences Among Resting Coronary Physiological Indices: Are All Things Equal? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 10 24; 70(17):2124-2127.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.066
  66. One catheter or two? Tomayto or Tomahto? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 08 01; 90(2):249-250.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.064
  67. Sustained left ventricular outflow tract ventricular tachycardia following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Eur Heart J. 2017 06 07; 38(22):1776.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.064
  68. Stimulating Extracardiac Collaterals via Right Internal Mammary Artery Occlusion: Another Step Into an Undiscovered Country. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 06; 10(6).
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.064
  69. Breaking the code: What is the best post-PCI MI definition? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 04; 89(5):857-859.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.063
  70. Late breaking trials of 2016 in coronary artery disease: Commentary covering SCAI, ACC, TCT, EuroPCR, ESC, and AHA. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 May; 89(6):1028-1034.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.063
  71. Aspiration thrombectomy and intracoronary tirofiban via GuideLiner? catheter for a thrombosed aneurysmal vessel. Future Cardiol. 2017 03; 13(2):131-135.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.062
  72. Does pre-PCI FFR predict post-PCI blood flow increase? do we need IMR too? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 02 01; 89(2):243-244.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.062
  73. Does the Natural History of Atherosclerosis Follow an Ischemic?Dose-Response Curve? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 11 29; 68(21):2256-2258.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.062
  74. Does the AToMIC trial explode concerns of contrast coagulopathy? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Nov; 88(5):738-739.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.061
  75. Defining the common femoral artery: Insights from the femoral arterial access with ultrasound trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Jun 01; 89(7):1185-1192.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.060
  76. Why we need intravenous antiplatelet agents. Future Cardiol. 2016 09; 12(5):553-61.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.060
  77. Antiplatelet agents in transradial primary PCI: safe enough to be aggressive. Coron Artery Dis. 2016 06; 27(4):255-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.059
  78. Transulnar catheterization: The road less traveled. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Apr; 87(5):866-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.059
  79. Late breaking trials of 2015 in coronary artery disease: Commentary covering ACC, EuroPCR, SCAI, TCT, ESC, and AHA. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Jun; 87(7):1224-30.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.058
  80. Simulator training: The bridge between "primum non nocere" and "learning by doing". Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Feb 15; 87(3):381-2.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.058
  81. On the search for an "easy" FFR: Submaximal hyperemia and NTG-induced translesional pressure drop (Pd/Pa-NTG). Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Feb 01; 87(2):270-2.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.058
  82. AVERTing contrast nephropathy--delivering less to get more? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Dec 01; 86(7):1234-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.057
  83. Coronary perforation: What color is your parachute? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Sep; 86(3):405-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.056
  84. Is the left main just another artery to FFR? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Jul; 86(1):19-20.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.056
  85. Selecting the Right Fractional Flow Reserve in an Unsteady State: Keep It Simple. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Jul; 8(8):1028-1030.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.056
  86. 38 mm Stents: go big and go long. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Feb 01; 85(2):225-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.054
  87. Real-time ultrasound guidance facilitates transradial access: RAUST (Radial Artery access with Ultrasound Trial). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Feb; 8(2):283-291.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.054
  88. Direct stenting for STEMI: does it really make a difference? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Nov 15; 84(6):932-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.053
  89. Are veterans and the VA any more "crusty" than others? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Oct 01; 84(4):644-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.053
  90. Robotic-assist PCI: precision guided PCI or a rube goldberg solution? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 May 01; 83(6):922-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.051
  91. In reply. Cleve Clin J Med. 2014 Mar; 81(3):139-44.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.051
  92. A return to a commonsense MI definition. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Apr; 85(5):930-1.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.051
  93. Balloon-assisted tracking for transradial catheterization: beating the curve. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Feb; 83(2):221-2.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.051
  94. Variations of coronary hemodynamic responses to intravenous adenosine infusion: implications for fractional flow reserve measurements. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Sep 01; 84(3):416-25.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.050
  95. Third universal definition of myocardial infarction: update, caveats, differential diagnoses. Cleve Clin J Med. 2013 Dec; 80(12):777-86.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.050
  96. Perioperative MI: is there a clot or not? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Oct 01; 82(4):629-31.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.049
  97. Glycoprotein inhibitors: not dead yet. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Aug 01; 82(2):182-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.049
  98. Troponins should be confirmed with CK-MB in atypical presentations. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Apr 02; 61(13):1467-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.048
  99. Interpreting drug effects on coronary flow reserve after PTCA: clarity or confusion? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Mar; 81(4):687-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.047
  100. Declining PCI volume: does low volume mean low quality? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Jan 01; 81(1):40-1.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.047
  101. The Guideliner: Keeping your procedure on track or derailing it? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012 Sep 01; 80(3):451-2.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.046
  102. Upstream glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors for STEMI: use on-time or not at all? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012 May 01; 79(6):965-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.045
  103. Optimizing femoral access outcomes: how far can we go? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011 Jul 01; 78(1):52-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.042
  104. Real-time ultrasound guidance facilitates femoral arterial access and reduces vascular complications: FAUST (Femoral Arterial Access With Ultrasound Trial). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010 Jul; 3(7):751-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.039
  105. Sudden onset congestive heart failure with a continuous murmur: ruptured sinus of Valsalva aneurysm complicated by anomalous origin of the left coronary artery. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2008 Jan-Mar; 9(1):41-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.033
  106. Changes in post-PCI physiology based on anatomical vessel location: a DEFINE PCI substudy. EuroIntervention. 2023 Dec 18; 19(11):e903-e912.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.025
  107. 1-Year Outcomes of Blinded Physiological Assessment of Residual?Ischemia After Successful PCI: DEFINE PCI Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 01 10; 15(1):52-61.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.022
  108. Nonhyperemic Pressure Ratios Versus Fractional Flow Reserve: What to Do With Discordant Results? J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 09 15; 9(18):e018344.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.020
  109. Hot topics in interventional cardiology: Proceedings from the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions 2020 think tank. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 11; 96(6):1258-1265.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.020
  110. Early vs Late Discharge in Low-Risk ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020 11; 21(11):1360-1368.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.020
  111. Effects of pericardial tamponade on the hemodynamics of aortic stenosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 07; 96(1):236-242.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.019
  112. Outcomes With Deferred Versus Performed Revascularization of Coronary Lesions With Gray-Zone Fractional Flow Reserve Values. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 12; 12(12):e008315.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.019
  113. Blinded Physiological Assessment of Residual Ischemia After Successful Angiographic Percutaneous Coronary?Intervention: The DEFINE PCI Study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 10 28; 12(20):1991-2001.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.019
  114. Sex Differences in Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Revascularization Strategy. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 10 28; 12(20):2035-2046.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.019
  115. Comparison of Major Adverse Cardiac Events Between Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Strategy in Patients With or Without Type 2 Diabetes: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2019 09 01; 4(9):857-864.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.019
  116. Association of Physician Specialty With Long-Term Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Complication and Reoperations Rates. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019 06; 12(6):e005374.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.018
  117. Clinical Events After Deferral of LAD?Revascularization Following Physiological?Coronary?Assessment. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 02 05; 73(4):444-453.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.018
  118. Letter by Kern et al Regarding Article, "Effects of Impella on Coronary Perfusion in Patients With Critical Coronary Artery Stenosis". Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 02; 12(2):e007751.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.018
  119. Association of Statewide Certificate of Need Regulations With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Appropriateness and Outcomes. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 01 22; 8(2):e010373.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.018
  120. Safety of the Deferral of Coronary Revascularization on the Basis of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements in Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 08 13; 11(15):1437-1449.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.017
  121. The occult hemodynamically significant left main stenosis in the asymptomatic patient: Reconciling the visual-functional mismatch - A case report and review of screening appropriateness and assessment of left main in patient with multi-vessel CAD. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2018 10; 19(7 Pt A):805-809.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.017
  122. ACIST-FFR Study (Assessment of Catheter-Based Interrogation and Standard Techniques for Fractional Flow Reserve Measurement). Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Dec; 10(12).
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.017
  123. Use of the Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve in PCI. N Engl J Med. 2017 05 11; 376(19):1824-1834.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.016
  124. Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Concurrent Active Gastrointestinal Bleeding. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Oct; 8(10).
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.014
  125. Nonangiographic assessment of coronary artery disease: a practical approach to optical coherence tomography and fractional flow reserve. Coron Artery Dis. 2014 Nov; 25(7):608-18.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
  126. Invasive testing for coronary artery disease: FFR, IVUS, OCT, NIRS. Cardiol Clin. 2014 Aug; 32(3):405-17.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
  127. Disparity between angiographic coronary lesion complexity and lipid core plaques assessed by near-infrared spectroscopy. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Feb; 81(3):529-37.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
Connection Strength

The connection strength for concepts is the sum of the scores for each matching publication.

Publication scores are based on many factors, including how long ago they were written and whether the person is a first or senior author.