Y Wady Aude1, Luis Garza. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, Little Rock 72205-7199, USA. audeyamilw@uams.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Coronary angiography is limited by the inability to identify intermediate coronary lesions responsible for ischemia. In the catheterization laboratory three techniques can be used for the evaluation of the physiologic significance of intermediate or borderline significant coronary stenoses: (1) pressure wire-derived coronary fractional flow reserve (FFR), (2) Doppler wire-derived measurement of coronary flow reserve (CFR), and (3) intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). RECENT FINDINGS: All of these techniques have been validated for assessing the functional significance of intermediate stenoses, but also have inherent limitations. SUMMARY: Overall, measurement of FFR appears to be the best method for interrogating intermediate coronary lesions. This review discusses the strengths and limitations of each of these techniques.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Coronary angiography is limited by the inability to identify intermediate coronary lesions responsible for ischemia. In the catheterization laboratory three techniques can be used for the evaluation of the physiologic significance of intermediate or borderline significant coronary stenoses: (1) pressure wire-derived coronary fractional flow reserve (FFR), (2) Doppler wire-derived measurement of coronary flow reserve (CFR), and (3) intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). RECENT FINDINGS: All of these techniques have been validated for assessing the functional significance of intermediate stenoses, but also have inherent limitations. SUMMARY: Overall, measurement of FFR appears to be the best method for interrogating intermediate coronary lesions. This review discusses the strengths and limitations of each of these techniques.
Authors: Giovanni Storto; Andrea Soricelli; Teresa Pellegrino; Mario Petretta; Alberto Cuocolo Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Robert J Donovan; Calvin Choi; Asghar Ali; Douglas M Heuman; Michael Fuchs; Anthony A Bavry; Ion S Jovin Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2016-11-09 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: A S Turk; K M Johnson; D Lum; D Niemann; B Aagaard-Kienitz; D Consigny; J Grinde; P Turski; V Haughton; C Mistretta Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 3.825