OBJECTIVES: This study sought to define the additional effective radiation dose, procedural time, and contrast medium needed to obtain fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements after a diagnostic coronary angiogram. BACKGROUND: The FFR measurements performed at the end of a diagnostic angiogram allow the obtaining of functional information that complements the anatomic findings. METHODS: In 200 patients (mean age 66 +/- 10 years) undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography, FFR was measured in at least 1 intermediate coronary artery stenosis. Hyperemia was achieved by intracoronary (n = 180) or intravenous (n = 20) adenosine. The radiation dose (mSv), procedural time (min), and contrast medium (ml) needed for diagnostic angiography and FFR were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 296 stenoses (1.5 +/- 0.7 stenoses per patient) were assessed. The additional mean radiation dose, procedural time, and contrast medium needed to obtain FFR expressed as a percentage of the entire procedure were 30 +/- 16% (median 4 mSv, range 2.4 to 6.7 mSv), 26 +/- 13% (median 9 min, range 7 to 13 min), and 31 +/- 16% (median 50 ml, range 30 to 90 ml), respectively. The radiation dose and contrast medium during FFR were similar after intravenous and intracoronary adenosine, though the procedural time was slightly longer with intravenous adenosine (median 11 min, range 10 to 17 min, p = 0.04) than with intracoronary adenosine (median 9 min, range 7 to 13 min). When FFR was measured in 3 or more lesions, radiation dose, procedural time, and contrast medium increased. CONCLUSIONS: The additional radiation dose, procedural time, and contrast medium to obtain FFR measurement are low as compared to other cardiovascular imaging modalities. Therefore, the combination of diagnostic angiography and FFR measurements is warranted to provide simultaneously anatomic and functional information in patients with coronary artery disease. Copyright (c) 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to define the additional effective radiation dose, procedural time, and contrast medium needed to obtain fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements after a diagnostic coronary angiogram. BACKGROUND: The FFR measurements performed at the end of a diagnostic angiogram allow the obtaining of functional information that complements the anatomic findings. METHODS: In 200 patients (mean age 66 +/- 10 years) undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography, FFR was measured in at least 1 intermediate coronary artery stenosis. Hyperemia was achieved by intracoronary (n = 180) or intravenous (n = 20) adenosine. The radiation dose (mSv), procedural time (min), and contrast medium (ml) needed for diagnostic angiography and FFR were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 296 stenoses (1.5 +/- 0.7 stenoses per patient) were assessed. The additional mean radiation dose, procedural time, and contrast medium needed to obtain FFR expressed as a percentage of the entire procedure were 30 +/- 16% (median 4 mSv, range 2.4 to 6.7 mSv), 26 +/- 13% (median 9 min, range 7 to 13 min), and 31 +/- 16% (median 50 ml, range 30 to 90 ml), respectively. The radiation dose and contrast medium during FFR were similar after intravenous and intracoronary adenosine, though the procedural time was slightly longer with intravenous adenosine (median 11 min, range 10 to 17 min, p = 0.04) than with intracoronary adenosine (median 9 min, range 7 to 13 min). When FFR was measured in 3 or more lesions, radiation dose, procedural time, and contrast medium increased. CONCLUSIONS: The additional radiation dose, procedural time, and contrast medium to obtain FFR measurement are low as compared to other cardiovascular imaging modalities. Therefore, the combination of diagnostic angiography and FFR measurements is warranted to provide simultaneously anatomic and functional information in patients with coronary artery disease. Copyright (c) 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Tim P van de Hoef; Joo Myung Lee; Mauro Echavarria-Pinto; Bon-Kwon Koo; Hitoshi Matsuo; Manesh R Patel; Justin E Davies; Javier Escaned; Jan J Piek Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2020-05-14 Impact factor: 32.419
Authors: Bong-Ki Lee; Hong-Seok Lim; William F Fearon; Andy S Yong; Ryotaro Yamada; Shigemitsu Tanaka; David P Lee; Alan C Yeung; Jennifer A Tremmel Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-02-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Sukhjinder S Nijjer; Sayan Sen; Ricardo Petraco; Rajesh Sachdeva; Florim Cuculi; Javier Escaned; Christopher Broyd; Nicolas Foin; Nearchos Hadjiloizou; Rodney A Foale; Iqbal Malik; Ghada W Mikhail; Amarjit S Sethi; Mahmud Al-Bustami; Raffi R Kaprielian; Masood A Khan; Christopher S Baker; Michael F Bellamy; Alun D Hughes; Jamil Mayet; Rajesh K Kharbanda; Carlo Di Mario; Justin E Davies Journal: Heart Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Min Chul Kim; Myung Ho Jeong; Sang Hyung Kim; Young Joon Hong; Ju Han Kim; Youngkeun Ahn Journal: Korean Circ J Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 3.243
Authors: Fernando De la Garza-Salazar; Diana Lorena Lankenau-Vela; Bertha Cadena-Nuñez; Arnulfo González-Cantú; Maria Elena Romero-Ibarguengoitia Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 4.379