Arnold Seto to Coronary Stenosis
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Arnold Seto has written about Coronary Stenosis.
Connection Strength
15.243
-
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.
Score: 0.817
-
Exploring the Impact of End-Stage Renal Disease on Fractional Flow Reserve. Am J Cardiol. 2023 11 15; 207:505-506.
Score: 0.799
-
Can Automating the SYNTAX Score Move Practice Beyond the Angiogram Alone? JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 12 26; 15(24):2487-2489.
Score: 0.757
-
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.
Score: 0.749
-
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.
Score: 0.744
-
Should CFR Be Routinely Measured in the Cath Lab? JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 05 23; 15(10):1057-1059.
Score: 0.727
-
Physiologic Lesion Assessment to Optimize Multivessel Disease. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2022 05; 24(5):541-550.
Score: 0.715
-
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.
Score: 0.671
-
Comparing QFR and FFR in small vessels-Expanding the spectrum of use. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 10 01; 96(4):752-754.
Score: 0.649
-
Effects of intraaortic balloon counterpulsation on translesional coronary hemodynamics. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 10 01; 96(4):871-877.
Score: 0.636
-
Is There a Paradox of FFR Outcomes in Diabetic Patients? Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020 07; 21(7):903-904.
Score: 0.628
-
Better measurement repeatability of FFR than CFR: Role of the human error factor. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 11 01; 94(5):684-685.
Score: 0.609
-
Vive la difference: Factors and mechanisms predicting discrepancy between iFR and FFR. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 09 01; 94(3):364-366.
Score: 0.602
-
High FFR strongly predicts arterial graft dysfunction: pure benefit in a pure population? Eur Heart J. 2019 08 01; 40(29):2429-2431.
Score: 0.598
-
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.
Score: 0.569
-
Bifurcation lesion assessment with advanced quantitative coronary angiography: A method still wanting. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 06; 91(7):1271-1272.
Score: 0.552
-
A Perspective on Physiologic Assessment of Coronary Stenoses in Series: Methods, Myths, and Best Practices? JAMA Cardiol. 2018 05 01; 3(5):368-370.
Score: 0.548
-
Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio?Outcomes?and the Epistemology?of?Ischemia. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 12 26; 10(24):2511-2513.
Score: 0.533
-
Agreement and Differences Among Resting Coronary Physiological Indices: Are All Things Equal? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 10 24; 70(17):2124-2127.
Score: 0.529
-
Selecting the Right Fractional Flow Reserve in an Unsteady State: Keep It Simple. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Jul; 8(8):1028-1030.
Score: 0.451
-
The Guideliner: Keeping your procedure on track or derailing it? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012 Sep 01; 80(3):451-2.
Score: 0.370
-
Changes in post-PCI physiology based on anatomical vessel location: a DEFINE PCI substudy. EuroIntervention. 2023 Dec 18; 19(11):e903-e912.
Score: 0.203
-
Nonhyperemic Pressure Ratios Versus Fractional Flow Reserve: What to Do With Discordant Results? J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 09 15; 9(18):e018344.
Score: 0.162
-
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.
Score: 0.152
-
Sex Differences in Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Revascularization Strategy. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 10 28; 12(20):2035-2046.
Score: 0.152
-
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.
Score: 0.150
-
Clinical Events After Deferral of LAD?Revascularization Following Physiological?Coronary?Assessment. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 02 05; 73(4):444-453.
Score: 0.145
-
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.
Score: 0.144
-
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.
Score: 0.140
-
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.
Score: 0.135
-
ACIST-FFR Study (Assessment of Catheter-Based Interrogation and Standard Techniques for Fractional Flow Reserve Measurement). Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Dec; 10(12).
Score: 0.133
-
Use of the Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve in PCI. N Engl J Med. 2017 05 11; 376(19):1824-1834.
Score: 0.127
-
Myocardial Contrast Stress Echo Versus Fractional Flow Reserve: A Fair Fight Among Ischemic Tests? Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 08; 9(8).
Score: 0.121
-
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.
Score: 0.117
-
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.
Score: 0.108