4.6 Article

Fractional Flow Reserve/Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Discordance in Angiographically Intermediate Coronary Stenoses An Analysis Using Doppler-Derived Coronary Flow Measurements

期刊

JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS
卷 10, 期 24, 页码 2514-2524

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.09.021

关键词

CFR; coronary flow reserve; coronary physiology; FFR; fractional flow reserve; iFR; instantaneous wave-free ratio

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
  2. Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service Trust Biomedical Research Centre
  3. Volcano Corporation
  4. Philips
  5. AstraZeneca
  6. Medtronic
  7. Pfizer
  8. Volcano-Philips
  9. Volcano
  10. Abbott/St. Jude Medical
  11. MRC [G1100443, MR/M018369/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  12. British Heart Foundation [FS/10/38/28268, FS/14/27/30752] Funding Source: researchfish
  13. Medical Research Council [G1100443, MR/M018369/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  14. National Institute for Health Research [CL-2015-21-001] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES The study sought to determine the coronary flow characteristics of angiographically intermediate stenoses classified as discordant by fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). BACKGROUND Discordance between FFR and iFR occurs in up to 20% of cases. No comparisons have been reported between the coronary flow characteristics of FFR/iFR discordant and angiographically unobstructed vessels. METHODS Baseline and hyperemic coronary flow velocity and coronary flow reserve (CFR) were compared across 5 vessel groups: FFR+/iFR+ (108 vessels, n = 91), FFR-/iFR+ (28 vessels, n = 24), FFR+/iFR-(22 vessels, n = 22), FFR-/iFR-(208 vessels, n = 154), and an unobstructed vessel group (201 vessels, n = 153), in a post hoc analysis of the largest combined pressure and Doppler flow velocity registry (IDEAL [Iberian-Dutch-English] collaborators study). RESULTS FFR disagreed with iFR in 14%(50 of 366). Baseline flow velocity was similar across all 5 vessel groups, including the unobstructed vessel group (p = 0.34 for variance). In FFR+/iFR-discordants, hyperemic flow velocity and CFR were similar to both FFR-/iFR- and unobstructed groups; 37.6 (interquartile range [IQR]: 26.1 to 50.4) cm/s vs. 40.0 [IQR: 29.7 to 52.3] cm/s and 42.2 [IQR: 33.8 to 53.2] cm/s and CFR 2.36 [IQR: 1.93 to 2.81] vs. 2.41 [IQR: 1.84 to 2.94] and 2.50 [IQR: 2.11 to 3.17], respectively (p > 0.05 for all). In FFR-/iFR+ discordants, hyperemic flow velocity, and CFR were similar to the FFR+/iFR+ group; 28.2 (IQR: 20.5 to 39.7) cm/s versus 23.5 (IQR: 16.4 to 34.9) cm/s and CFR 1.44 (IQR: 1.29 to 1.85) versus 1.39 (IQR: 1.06 to 1.88), respectively (p > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS FFR/iFR disagreement was explained by differences in hyperemic coronary flow velocity. Furthermore, coronary stenoses classified as FFR+/iFR- demonstrated similar coronary flow characteristics to angiographically unobstructed vessels. (c) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据