CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Fractional Flow Reserve

Abstract

Recommended Article

Fractional flow reserve derived from computed tomography coronary angiography in the assessment and management of stable chest pain: the FORECAST randomized trial Combined Assessment of Stress Myocardial Perfusion Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance and Flow Measurement in the Coronary Sinus Improves Prediction of Functionally Significant Coronary Stenosis Determined by Fractional Flow Reserve in Multivessel Disease Clinical implications of three-vessel fractional flow reserve measurement in patients with coronary artery disease Lesion-Specific and Vessel-Related Determinants of Fractional Flow Reserve Beyond Coronary Artery Stenosis Relationship between fractional flow reserve value and the amount of subtended myocardium Fractional flow reserve in clinical practice: from wire-based invasive measurement to image-based computation Experience With an On-Site Coronary Computed Tomography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve Algorithm for the Assessment of Intermediate Coronary Stenoses Post-stenting fractional flow reserve vs coronary angiography for optimisation of percutaneous coronary intervention: TARGET-FFR trial

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.