CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Fractional Flow Reserve

Abstract

Recommended Article

Diagnostic accuracy of instantaneous wave free-ratio in clinical practice Meta-Analysis of Death and Myocardial Infarction in the DEFINE-FLAIR and iFR-SWEDEHEART Trials Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided PCI for Stable Coronary Artery Disease Clinical Implication of Quantitative Flow Ratio After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for 3-Vessel Disease Coronary Computed Tomography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve Assessment-A Gatekeeper in Intermediate Stenoses Clinical Relevance of Functionally Insignificant Moderate Coronary Artery Stenosis Assessed by 3-Vessel Fractional Flow Reserve Measurement Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease
|<<... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...>>|

Original Research2018 Feb;27(2):212-218.

JOURNAL：Heart Lung Circ. Article Link

The Utility of Contrast Medium Fractional Flow Reserve in Functional Assessment Of Coronary Disease in Daily Practice

Van Wyk P, Puri A, Blake J et al. Keywords: Contrast Fractional Flow Reserve

ABSTRACT



BACKGROUND - Adenosine induced hyperaemic fractional flow reserve (aFFR) is a validated predictor of clinical outcome and part of routine interventional practice. Protocol issues associated with the adenosine infusion limit the use of aFFR in clinical practice. Contrast medium induced hyperaemic FFR (cFFR) is a simpler procedure from a practical standpoint. We compared the two in a real world setting.


METHODS - We analysed 76 patients that had both cFFR and aFFR assessment of 100 angiographically indeterminate coronary stenosis. cFFR was performed with intracoronary contrast medium injections (10ml for left coronary lesions and 8ml for right coronary lesions). The diagnostic performance of cFFR was analysed and compared to the gold standard aFFR.


RESULTS - Mean cFFR was 0.87 (±0.07) and mean aFFR was 0.84 (±0.08). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a close agreement between cFFR and aFFR (0.035±0.032; 95% CI: -0.028 to 0.098) and good linear correlation (r=0.92, r2=0.86; p<0.0001). Using cFFR cut-off values of ≤0.83 in predicting an aFFR value of ≤0.80 or a cFFR value ≥0.88, predicting an aFFR value of >0.80 yielded a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 96.1%, positive predictive value of 92.3%, negative predictive value of 100% and diagnostic accuracy of 96%. Only 24% of cFFR values were in the 0.84 to 0.87 range.


CONCLUSION - Contrast medium induced hyperaemic FFR as an initial assessment may limit the need for adenosine to when cFFR falls in the 0.84 to 0.87 range. The use of adenosine infusion potentially could have been avoided in the majority of patients in this study.


Copyright © 2017 Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons (ANZSCTS) and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 REGISTRATION

> CBS 2019 PROGRAM

> CBS 2019 CALL FOR SCIENCE

> CBS 2019 SPOTLIGHTS

 CBSMD

> CBSMD WEBSITE REGISTRATION

> EDUCATION CENTER

> RECOMMANDED PAPER

> TOP 10 RESEARCH PAPER

> PRE-READING

CBS 2019 CBS 2019 FACULTY Education Resource CBSMD Scientific Library
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top