CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Fractional Flow Reserve

Abstract

Recommended Article

Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease Coronary Computed Tomography–Based Fractional Flow Reserve A Rapidly Developing Field Physiology-Based Revascularization: A New Approach to Plan and Optimize Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: State-of-the-Art Review High-Resolution Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Techniques for the Identification of Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction Influence of Heart Rate on FFR Measurements: An Experimental and Clinical Validation Study Long-term clinical outcome after fractional flow reserve-guided treatment in patients with angiographically equivocal left main coronary artery stenosis Diagnostic Performance of the Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio: Comparison With Fractional Flow Reserve Impact of myocardial supply area on the transstenotic hemodynamics as determined by fractional flow reserve

Original Research2018 Jan;11(1):e004613.

JOURNAL:Circ Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Diagnostic Performance of the Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio: Comparison With Fractional Flow Reserve

De Rosa S, Polimeni A, Indolfi C et al. Keywords: acute coronary syndrome; cardiovascular diagnostic technique; coronary artery disease; coronary stenosis; myocardial fractional flow; reserve

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUNDAim of the present study was to perform a meta-analysis of all available studies comparing the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) with fractional flow reserve (FFR).


METHODS AND RESULTS - Published trials comparing the iFR with FFR were searched for in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus electronic databases. A total of 23 studies were available for the analysis, including 6381 stenoses. First, a meta-analysis of all studies was performed exploring the correlation between FFR and iFR. Interestingly, we found good correlation (0.798 [0.78-0.82]) between the 2 indices (P<0.001). In addition, to evaluate the diagnostic performance of iFR to identify FFR-positive coronary stenoses, we performed an additional meta-analysis, summarizing the results of receiver operating characteristics analyses from individual studies reporting the area under the curve. Summing the results of these studies, we found that iFR has a good diagnostic performance for the identification of FFR-positive stenoses (area under the curve=0.88 [0.86-0.90]; P<0.001). Furthermore, our search results included 5 studies that compared iFR and FFR to a third independent reference standard. Interestingly, no significant differences between iFR and FFR were reported in those studies.

CONCLUSIONS - The present meta-analysis shows that iFR significantly correlates with standard FFR and shows a good diagnostic performance in identifying FFR-positive coronary stenoses. Finally, iFR and FFR have similar diagnostic efficiency for detection of ischemia-inducing stenoses when tested against a third comparator.

© 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.