CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Fractional Flow Reserve

Abstract

Recommended Article

Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation Post-stenting fractional flow reserve vs coronary angiography for optimisation of percutaneous coronary intervention: TARGET-FFR trial Experience With an On-Site Coronary Computed Tomography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve Algorithm for the Assessment of Intermediate Coronary Stenoses Fractional flow reserve in clinical practice: from wire-based invasive measurement to image-based computation Diagnostic Performance of the Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio: Comparison With Fractional Flow Reserve Clinical Relevance of Functionally Insignificant Moderate Coronary Artery Stenosis Assessed by 3-Vessel Fractional Flow Reserve Measurement Diagnostic accuracy of instantaneous wave free-ratio in clinical practice Clinical Implication of Quantitative Flow Ratio After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for 3-Vessel Disease

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.