CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

2020 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Management of Conduction Disturbances in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee The contribution of tissue-grouped BMI-associated gene sets to cardiometabolic-disease risk: a Mendelian randomization study EXCELling in Left Main Intervention 5-Year Outcomes Comparing Surgical Versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease Decline in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction During Follow-Up in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Ascending Aortic Length and Risk of Aortic Adverse Events: The Neglected Dimension A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Open-label Trial to Compare Efficacy and Safety of Clopidogrel vs. Ticagrelor in Stabilized Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction after Percutan eous Coronary Intervention: rationale and design of the TALOS-AMI trial Contemporary Presentation and Management of Valvular Heart Disease: The EURObservational Research Programme Valvular Heart Disease II Survey Global Approach to High Bleeding Risk Patients With Polymer-Free Drug-Coated Coronary Stents: The LF II Study Haptoglobin genotype: a determinant of cardiovascular complication risk in type 1 diabetes

Original Research2017 Dec;30(6):564-569.

JOURNAL:J Interv Cardiol. Article Link

Diagnostic accuracy of instantaneous wave free-ratio in clinical practice

Ding WY, Nair S, Appleby C. Keywords: fractional flow reserve; functional testing; instantaneous wave-free ratio; pressure wire studies

ABSTRACT


AIMS - To evaluate the correlation between iFR and FFR in real-world clinical practice.


METHODS AND RESULTS - Retrospective, single-centre study of 229 consecutive pressure-wire studies (np  = 158). Real-time iFR and FFR measurements were performed for angiographically borderline stenoses. Functionally significant stenoses were defined as iFR <0.86 or FFR ≤0.80. An iFR between 0.86 and 0.93 was considered within the grey zone (Hybrid approach). Median iFR and FFR (IQR) were 0.92 (0.87-0.95) and 0.83 (0.76-0.89), respectively. Pearson's correlation coefficient was 0.75 (P < 0.001). Bland-Altman plot showed a mean difference between iFR and FFR that remained consistent throughout the range of values. The optimal iFR cutoff was 0.91-sensitivity 80%, specificity 82% with ROC area under curve of 89%. Using the Hybrid iFR-FFR strategy, we demonstrated high accuracy of iFR results-sensitivity 95%, specificity 96%, PPV 95%, and NPV 96%. In addition, this method would have avoided adenosine in 56% of patients. Mean follow-up period was 17.2 (±3.4) months. All-cause mortality was 3.2% (np = 5) and repeat intervention was required in six lesions (2.6%).


CONCLUSIONS - This study demonstrates that iFR is a valuable adjunct to FFR using the Hybrid iFR-FFR strategy in a real-world population. The use of adenosine may be avoided in about half the cases.


© 2017, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.