CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Fractional Flow Reserve

Abstract

Recommended Article

Coronary Flow Reserve in the Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio/Fractional Flow Reserve Era: Too Valuable to Be Neglected Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Multivessel Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction The Utility of Contrast Medium Fractional Flow Reserve in Functional Assessment Of Coronary Disease in Daily Practice Impact of Percutaneous Revascularization on Exercise Hemodynamics in Patients With Stable Coronary Disease Comparison of Accuracy of One-Use Methods for Calculating Fractional Flow Reserve by Intravascular Optical Coherence Tomography to That Determined by the Pressure-Wire Method Coronary Microcirculation Downstream Non-Infarct-Related Arteries in the Subacute Phase of Myocardial Infarction: Implications for Physiology-Guided Revascularization Robustness of Fractional Flow Reserve for Lesion Assessment in Non-Infarct-Related Arteries of Patients With Myocardial Infarction Correlation between frequency-domain optical coherence tomography and fractional flow reserve in angiographically-intermediate coronary lesions

Review Article2018 Feb 1;252:229-233.

JOURNAL:Int J Cardiol. Article Link

Diagnostic performance of stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance for the detection of coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Kiaos A, Tziatzios I, Karamitsos TD et al. Keywords: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance; Coronary artery disease; Diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis; Stress perfusion

ABSTRACT


INTRODUCTION - The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy of qualitative stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) to diagnose ischemia-causing lesions according to different definitions of significant coronary artery disease (CAD), and magnetic field strength.


METHODS - We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for studies evaluating diagnostic performance of qualitative stress perfusion CMR for diagnosis of CAD versus coronary angiography or fractionalflow reserve (FFR) from inception to 10 September 2017. We used hierarchical models to synthesize the available data.


RESULTS - Sixty-seven studies (7113 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The patient-based analysis of studies using FFR as the reference standard demonstrated a mean sensitivity of 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.93) and a mean specificity of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.80-0.89). The patient-based analyses for detecting coronary stenosis ≥50% and coronary stenosis ≥70% at 1.5T and for detecting coronary stenosis ≥50% and coronary stenosis ≥70%, at 3T, demonstrated a mean sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79-0.84), 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89), 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82-0.95), and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.79-0.96), respectively; with a mean specificity of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.71-0.80), 0.77 (95% CI, 0.71-0.81), 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69-0.86), and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.59-0.85).


CONCLUSION - Qualitative stress perfusion CMR has high accuracy for the diagnosis of CAD, irrespective of the reference standard and the magnet strength. Studies using FFR as the reference standard had higher diagnostic accuracy on a patient level compared to studies using coronary angiography, with a notable difference in specificity.


Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.