CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Fractional Flow Reserve

Abstract

Recommended Article

Angiographic quantitative flow ratio-guided coronary intervention (FAVOR III China): a multicentre, randomised, sham-controlled trial Coronary CT Angiographic and Flow Reserve-Guided Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Prognostic Implications of Plaque Characteristics and Stenosis Severity in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease 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 Utilization and Outcomes of Measuring Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Association of Improvement in Fractional Flow Reserve With Outcomes, Including Symptomatic Relief, After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Anatomical and Functional Computed Tomography for Diagnosing Hemodynamically Significant Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis 5-Year Outcomes of PCI Guided by Measurement of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve

Original Research2020 Jun 3;S0167-5273(20)31098-6.

JOURNAL:Int J Cardiol. Article Link

Long-term Variations of FFR and iFR After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

R Scarsini, M Lunardi, F Ribichini et al. Keywords: FFR; iFR; severe AS; post TAVI

ABSTRACT

Long-term variations of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free-ratio (iFR) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have not been previously assessed. A total of 23 coronary lesions in 14 patients with aortic stenosis (AS) underwent physiology assessment at baseline, immediately after TAVI and at 14(7-29) months of follow-up. The angiographic severity of the lesions did not progress at follow-up (54[45-64] vs 54[49-63], p = .53). Overall, FFR (0.87[0.85-0.92] vs 0.88[0.82-0.92], p = .45) and iFR (0.88[0.85-0.96] vs 0.91[0.86-0.97], p = .30) did not change significantly compared with the baseline. FFR decreased in 3(13%) lesions with abnormal baseline value, whereas it remained stable in lesions with FFR > 0.80. Conversely, iFR did not show a systematic trend at long-term after TAVI. However, iFR demonstrated a higher reclassification rate at follow-up compared with FFR (p = .02). In conclusions, in this exploratory study, only minor variations of coronary physiology indices were observed at long-term after TAVI. Nevertheless, caution should be exercised in the interpretation of borderline FFR and iFR values in severe AS.