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 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.