CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Fractional Flow Reserve

Abstract

Recommended Article

FFR-guided multivessel stenting reduces urgent revascularization compared with infarct-related artery only stenting in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guidance of PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (FAME): 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial Diagnostic Performance of Angiogram-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve: A Pooled Analysis of 5 Prospective Cohort Studies Diagnostic Accuracy of Angiography-Based Quantitative Flow Ratio Measurements for Online Assessment of Coronary Stenosis New Volumetric Analysis Method for Stent Expansion and its Correlation With Final Fractional Flow Reserve and Clinical Outcome An ILUMIEN I Substudy Physiologic Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Discordance Between FFR and iFR Long-term clinical outcome after fractional flow reserve-guided treatment in patients with angiographically equivocal left main coronary artery stenosis Sex Differences in Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided Revascularization Strategy

Review ArticleVolume 13, Issue 14, July 2020

JOURNAL:JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions Article Link

The Impact of Coronary Physiology on Contemporary Clinical Decision Making

N Kogame, M Ono, PW Serruys et al. Keywords: angiography-derived FFR; computed tomography–derived fractional flow reserve; coronary microvascular disease; FFR ;instantaneous wave-free ratio; nonhyperemic pressure ratio

ABSTRACT

Physiological assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD) has become one of the cornerstones of decision making for myocardial revascularization, with a large body of evidence supporting the benefits of using fractional flow reserve and other pressure-based indexes for functional assessment of coronary stenoses. Furthermore, physiology allows the identification of specific vascular dysfunction mechanisms in patients without obstructive CAD. Currently, more than 10 modalities of functional coronary assessment are available, although the overall adoption of these physiological tools, of either intracoronary or image-based nature, is still low. In this paper the authors review these modalities of functional coronary assessment according to their timing of use: outside the catheterization laboratory, in the catheterization laboratory prior to the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and in the catheterization laboratory during or after PCI. The authors discuss how the information obtained can be used in setting the indication for PCI, in planning and guiding the procedure, and in documenting the final functional result of the intervention. The advantages and limitations of each modality in each setting are discussed. Furthermore, the key value of intracoronary physiology in diagnosing mechanisms of microcirculatory dysfunction, which account for the presence of ischemia in many patients without obstructive CAD, is revisited. On the basis of the opportunities generated by the multiplicity of diagnostic tools described, the authors propose an algorithmic approach to physiological coronary investigations in clinical practice, with the key aims of: 1) avoiding unneeded revascularization procedures; 2) improving procedural PCI and long-term outcomes in patients with obstructive CAD; and 3) diagnosing vascular dysfunction mechanisms that can be effectively treated in patients with NOCAD. The authors believe that such structured approach may also contribute to the wider adoption of available technologies for functional assessment of patients with CAD.