CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Fractional Flow Reserve

Abstract

Recommended Article

Coronary Computed Tomography–Based Fractional Flow Reserve A Rapidly Developing Field Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease Physiology-Based Revascularization: A New Approach to Plan and Optimize Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: State-of-the-Art Review Long-term clinical outcome after fractional flow reserve-guided treatment in patients with angiographically equivocal left main coronary artery stenosis Influence of Heart Rate on FFR Measurements: An Experimental and Clinical Validation Study Diagnostic Performance of the Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio: Comparison With Fractional Flow Reserve 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 Fractional flow reserve derived from computed tomography coronary angiography in the assessment and management of stable chest pain: the FORECAST randomized trial
|<<... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ...>>|

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

BACKGROUND - Aim 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.
>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