CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Fractional Flow Reserve

Abstract

Recommended Article

Post-stenting fractional flow reserve vs coronary angiography for optimisation of percutaneous coronary intervention: TARGET-FFR trial Five-Year Outcomes with PCI Guided by Fractional Flow Reserve Long-term Variations of FFR and iFR After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease Physiological Stratification of Patients With Angina Due to Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided PCI as Compared with Coronary Bypass Surgery New Volumetric Analysis Method for Stent Expansion and its Correlation With Final Fractional Flow Reserve and Clinical Outcome An ILUMIEN I Substudy Coronary fractional flow reserve in bifurcation stenoses: what have we learned?
|<<... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >>|

Original ResearchMay, 2019

JOURNAL：EuroIntervention. Article Link

Diagnostic accuracy of intracoronary optical coherence tomography-derived fractional flow reserve for assessment of coronary stenosis severity

W Yu, JY Huang, SX Tu et al. Keywords: OCT based FFR; OFR; diagnostic accuracy; wire-based FFR; flow-limiting coronary stenosis

ABSTRACT

AIMS - A novel method for computation of fractional flow reserve (FFR) from optical coherence tomography (OCT) was developed recently. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a new OCT-based FFR (OFR) computational approach, using wire-based FFR as the reference standard.


METHODS AND RESULTS - Patients who underwent both OCT and FFR prior to intervention were analysed. The lumen of the interrogated vessel and the ostia of the side branches were automatically delineated and used to compute OFR. Bifurcation fractal laws were applied to correct the change in reference lumen size due to the step-down phenomenon. OFR was compared with FFR, both using a cut-off value of 0.80 to define ischaemia. Computational analysis was performed in 125 vessels from 118 patients. Average FFR was 0.80±0.09. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for OFR to identify FFR ≤0.80 was 90% (95% CI: 84-95), 87% (95% CI: 77-94), 92% (95% CI: 82-97), 92% (95% CI: 82-97), and 88% (95% CI: 77-95), respectively. The AUC was higher for OFR than minimal lumen area (0.93 [95% CI: 0.87-0.97] versus 0.80 [95% CI: 0.72-0.86], p=0.002). Average OFR analysis time was 55±23 seconds for each OCT pullback. Intra- and inter-observer variability in OFR analysis was 0.00±0.02 and 0.00±0.03, respectively.


CONCLUSIONS - OFR is a novel and fast method allowing assessment of flow-limiting coronary stenosis without pressure wire and induced hyperaemia. The good diagnostic accuracy and low observer variability bear the potential of improved integration of intracoronary imaging and physiological assessment.

>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 REGISTRATION

> CBS 2019 PROGRAM

> CBS 2019 CALL FOR SCIENCE

> CBS 2019 SPOTLIGHTS

 CBSMD

> CBSMD WEBSITE REGISTRATION

> EDUCATION CENTER

> RECOMMANDED PAPER

> TOP 10 RESEARCH PAPER

> PRE-READING

CBS 2019 CBS 2019 FACULTY Education Resource CBSMD Scientific Library
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top