CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Fractional Flow Reserve

Abstract

Recommended Article

Clinical value of post-percutaneous coronary intervention fractional flow reserve value: A systematic review and meta-analysis Comparison of Accuracy of One-Use Methods for Calculating Fractional Flow Reserve by Intravascular Optical Coherence Tomography to That Determined by the Pressure-Wire Method Clinical Significance of Concordance or Discordance Between Fractional Flow Reserve and Coronary Flow Reserve for Coronary Physiological Indices, Microvascular Resistance, and Prognosis After Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Multivessel Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction Diagnostic performance of stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance for the detection of coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide PCI Prognostic Implication of Thermodilution Coronary Flow Reserve in Patients Undergoing Fractional Flow Reserve Measurement Coronary Flow Reserve in the Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio/Fractional Flow Reserve Era: Too Valuable to Be Neglected

Original ResearchVolume 13, Issue 4, February 2020

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Diagnostic Performance of Angiogram-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve: A Pooled Analysis of 5 Prospective Cohort Studies

G Witberg, BD Bruyne, WF Fearon et al. Keywords: coronary heart disease; coronary physiology; FFR

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - This study sought to assess the diagnostic performance of FFRangio (CathWorks, Kfar Saba, Israel), an angiogram-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) technology.

 

BACKGROUND - Despite practice guidelines recommendations, the use of coronary physiologic assessment in daily practice remains low for patients undergoing coronary angiography. Angiogram-derived FFR technologies have the potential to promote the integration of physiologic assessment in daily practice.

 

METHODS -  The study performed an analysis of pooled patient- and lesion-level data from 5 prospective cohort studies that examined the diagnostic performance of FFRangio compared with the reference standard wire-based FFR.

 

RESULTS - A total of 700 lesions from 588 patients were analyzed. Mean age was 65 years, 71% were men, and 40% presented with acute coronary syndromes. Mean FFR and FFRangio were 0.81 ± 0.12 and 0.81 ± 0.11, with 31.6% and 31.4% of lesions were in the 0.75 to 0.85 range, respectively. When using a binary cutoff FFR value of 0.80, FFRangio showed a sensitivity of 91%, a specificity of 94%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 93%. The mean difference between FFR and FFRangio was 0.00 ± 0.12. The correlation coefficient between FFR and FFRangio was 0.83 (p < 0.001). The C-statistic for FFRangio was 0.95 (p < 0.001). The accuracy of FFRangio was consistent across all subgroups examined.

 

CONCLUSIONS - In the largest reported cohort examining the performance of angiogram-derived FFR technology, FFRangio showed excellent diagnostic performance, which was robust and consistent across all patient and lesion subgroups. Additional studies are needed allow FFRangio and fulfill its potential expand the implementation of functional assessment of coronary lesions in routine clinical practice.