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 Clinical Relevance of Functionally Insignificant Moderate Coronary Artery Stenosis Assessed by 3-Vessel Fractional Flow Reserve Measurement 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 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 Coronary Computed Tomography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve Assessment-A Gatekeeper in Intermediate Stenoses Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided PCI for Stable Coronary Artery Disease Coronary Computed Tomography–Based Fractional Flow Reserve A Rapidly Developing Field
|<<... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...>>|

Original ResearchVolume 11, Issue 15, August 2018

JOURNAL：JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Prognostic Implication of Thermodilution Coronary Flow Reserve in Patients Undergoing Fractional Flow Reserve Measurement

JM Lee, KH Choi, D Hwang et al. Keywords: coronary artery disease; coronary flow reserve; fractional flow reserve; myocardial ischemia; percutaneous coronary intervention; prognosis

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES - This study investigated the prognostic implication of coronary flow reserve (CFR) in patients who underwent fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement.


BACKGROUND - Limited data are available regarding the long-term prognosis associated with thermodilution CFR in patients with coronary artery disease.

METHODS - A total of 519 patients (737 vessels) who did not undergo revascularization were classified according to FFR and CFR values. Low FFR and low CFR were defined with upper thresholds of 0.8 and 2.0, respectively. FFR and CFR were measured by a pressure-temperature sensor–tipped wire. Clinical outcomes were assessed by the vessel-oriented composite outcome (VOCO) (a composite of cardiac death, vessel-specific myocardial infarction, and vessel-specific revascularization) during 5 years of follow-up.

RESULTS - The categorical agreement (kappa = 0.080; p = 0.024) between FFR and CFR were modest, and 30.6% of the population showed discordant results between FFR and CFR. During 5 years of follow-up, patients with low CFR had a significantly higher risk of VOCO than did those with high CFR (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.171; 95% CI: 1.664 to 6.042; p < 0.001). Among patients with high FFR, there were no differences in clinical risk factor profiles, FFR, or stenosis severity between the high-CFR and low-CFR groups, and low CFR was an independent predictor for VOCO (HR: 4.999; 95% CI: 2.104 to 11.879; p < 0.001). In a 4-group classification according to both FFR and CFR, patients with low FFR and low CFR had the highest risk of VOCO (17.9%; overall p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS - Patients with low CFR had a significantly higher risk of clinical events during 5 years of follow-up. Low CFR was an independent predictor for patient-oriented composite outcome among patients with high FFR. These results support the value of CFR in patients who undergo FFR measurement. (Clinical, Physical and Prognostic Implication of Microvascular Status; NCT02186093)
>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