CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Fractional Flow Reserve

Abstract

Recommended Article

Diagnostic Performance of Angiogram-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve: A Pooled Analysis of 5 Prospective Cohort Studies Coronary CT Angiographic and Flow Reserve-Guided Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Prognostic Implications of Plaque Characteristics and Stenosis Severity in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Safety of the Deferral of Coronary Revascularization on the Basis of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements in Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes Utilization and Outcomes of Measuring Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Association of Improvement in Fractional Flow Reserve With Outcomes, Including Symptomatic Relief, After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Anatomical and Functional Computed Tomography for Diagnosing Hemodynamically Significant Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis 5-Year Outcomes of PCI Guided by Measurement of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve
|<<... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >>|

Original Research2017 Dec;30(6):564-569.

JOURNAL：J Interv Cardiol. Article Link

Diagnostic accuracy of instantaneous wave free-ratio in clinical practice

Ding WY, Nair S, Appleby C. Keywords: fractional flow reserve; functional testing; instantaneous wave-free ratio; pressure wire studies

ABSTRACT


AIMS - To evaluate the correlation between iFR and FFR in real-world clinical practice.


METHODS AND RESULTS - Retrospective, single-centre study of 229 consecutive pressure-wire studies (np  = 158). Real-time iFR and FFR measurements were performed for angiographically borderline stenoses. Functionally significant stenoses were defined as iFR <0.86 or FFR ≤0.80. An iFR between 0.86 and 0.93 was considered within the grey zone (Hybrid approach). Median iFR and FFR (IQR) were 0.92 (0.87-0.95) and 0.83 (0.76-0.89), respectively. Pearson's correlation coefficient was 0.75 (P < 0.001). Bland-Altman plot showed a mean difference between iFR and FFR that remained consistent throughout the range of values. The optimal iFR cutoff was 0.91-sensitivity 80%, specificity 82% with ROC area under curve of 89%. Using the Hybrid iFR-FFR strategy, we demonstrated high accuracy of iFR results-sensitivity 95%, specificity 96%, PPV 95%, and NPV 96%. In addition, this method would have avoided adenosine in 56% of patients. Mean follow-up period was 17.2 (±3.4) months. All-cause mortality was 3.2% (np = 5) and repeat intervention was required in six lesions (2.6%).


CONCLUSIONS - This study demonstrates that iFR is a valuable adjunct to FFR using the Hybrid iFR-FFR strategy in a real-world population. The use of adenosine may be avoided in about half the cases.


© 2017, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

>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