CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Epinephrine Versus Norepinephrine for Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries as compared with myocardial infarction and obstructive coronary disease: outcomes in a Medicare population Prevalence of anginal symptoms and myocardial ischemia and their effect on clinical outcomes in outpatients with stable coronary artery disease: data from the International Observational CLARIFY Registry 4-Step Protocol for Disparities in STEMI Care and Outcomes in Women Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing: What Is its Value? Improved Outcomes Associated with the use of Shock Protocols: Updates from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative Chronic total occlusion intervention of the non-infarct-related artery in acute myocardial infarction patients: the Korean multicenter chronic total occlusion registry Heart Regeneration by Endogenous Stem Cells and Cardiomyocyte Proliferation: Controversy, Fallacy, and Progress A Test in Context: E/A and E/e' to Assess Diastolic Dysfunction and LV Filling Pressure

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.