CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Fractional Flow Reserve

Abstract

Recommended Article

Use of the Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve in PCI Accuracy of Fractional Flow Reserve Derived From Coronary Angiography Diagnostic performance of transluminal attenuation gradient and fractional flow reserve by coronary computed tomographic angiography (FFR(CT)) compared to invasive FFR: a sub-group analysis from the DISCOVER-FLOW and DeFACTO studies Prognostic Implication of Functional Incomplete Revascularization and Residual Functional SYNTAX Score in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Anatomical plaque and vessel characteristics are associated with hemodynamic indices including fractional flow reserve and coronary flow reserve: A prospective exploratory intravascular ultrasound analysis Diagnosis of ischemia-causing coronary stenoses by noninvasive fractional flow reserve computed from coronary computed tomographic angiograms. Results from the prospective multicenter DISCOVER-FLOW Machine Learning Approaches in Cardiovascular Imaging The Utility of Contrast Medium Fractional Flow Reserve in Functional Assessment Of Coronary Disease in Daily Practice

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.