CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Impact of percutaneous coronary intervention extent, complexity and platelet reactivity on outcomes after drug-eluting stent implantation Management of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Complications: Algorithms From the 2018 and 2019 Seattle Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Complications Conference Effects of clopidogrel vs. prasugrel vs. ticagrelor on endothelial function, inflammatory parameters, and platelet function in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing coronary artery stenting: a randomized, blinded, parallel study Invasive Versus Medical Management in Patients With Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery With a Non-ST Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Association Between Living in Food Deserts and Cardiovascular Risk Application of High-Sensitivity Troponin in Suspected Myocardial Infarction Interleukin-1 Beta as a Target for Atherosclerosis Therapy: Biological Basis of CANTOS and Beyond 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure Ejection Fraction Pros and Cons: JACC State-of-the-Art Review No causal effects of plasma homocysteine levels on the risk of coronary heart disease or acute myocardial infarction: A Mendelian randomization study
|<<... 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 ...>>|

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.

>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 注册

> CBS 2019 会议日程

> CBS 2019 学术征集

> CBS 2019 热点

 CBSMD

> CBSMD 网站注册

> 教育中心

> 荐读文献

> Top 10 阅读文献

> 文献导读
CBS 2019 CBS 2019 主席团 教育中心 科研动态
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top