CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

血流储备分数

Abstract

Recommended Article

Diagnostic accuracy of fractional flow reserve from anatomic CT angiography Impact of myocardial supply area on the transstenotic hemodynamics as determined by fractional flow reserve Relationship between fractional flow reserve value and the amount of subtended myocardium Meta-Analysis of Death and Myocardial Infarction in the DEFINE-FLAIR and iFR-SWEDEHEART Trials Retrospective Comparison of Long-Term Clinical Outcomes Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Medical Therapy in Stable Coronary Artery Disease With Gray Zone Fractional Flow Reserve - COMFORTABLE Retrospective Study Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide PCI Diagnosis of ischemia-causing coronary stenoses by noninvasive fractional flow reserve computed from coronary computed tomographic angiograms. Results from the prospective multicenter DISCOVER-FLOW Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease

Original ResearchMay, 2019

JOURNAL:EuroIntervention. Article Link

Diagnostic accuracy of intracoronary optical coherence tomography-derived fractional flow reserve for assessment of coronary stenosis severity

W Yu, JY Huang, SX Tu et al. Keywords: OCT based FFR; OFR; diagnostic accuracy; wire-based FFR; flow-limiting coronary stenosis

ABSTRACT


AIMS - A novel method for computation of fractional flow reserve (FFR) from optical coherence tomography (OCT) was developed recently. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a new OCT-based FFR (OFR) computational approach, using wire-based FFR as the reference standard.


METHODS AND RESULTS - Patients who underwent both OCT and FFR prior to intervention were analysed. The lumen of the interrogated vessel and the ostia of the side branches were automatically delineated and used to compute OFR. Bifurcation fractal laws were applied to correct the change in reference lumen size due to the step-down phenomenon. OFR was compared with FFR, both using a cut-off value of 0.80 to define ischaemia. Computational analysis was performed in 125 vessels from 118 patients. Average FFR was 0.80±0.09. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for OFR to identify FFR 0.80 was 90% (95% CI: 84-95), 87% (95% CI: 77-94), 92% (95% CI: 82-97), 92% (95% CI: 82-97), and 88% (95% CI: 77-95), respectively. The AUC was higher for OFR than minimal lumen area (0.93 [95% CI: 0.87-0.97] versus 0.80 [95% CI: 0.72-0.86], p=0.002). Average OFR analysis time was 55±23 seconds for each OCT pullback. Intra- and inter-observer variability in OFR analysis was 0.00±0.02 and 0.00±0.03, respectively.


CONCLUSIONS - OFR is a novel and fast method allowing assessment of flow-limiting coronary stenosis without pressure wire and induced hyperaemia. The good diagnostic accuracy and low observer variability bear the potential of improved integration of intracoronary imaging and physiological assessment.