Literature DB >> 26208615

Differences between automatically detected and steady-state fractional flow reserve.

Tobias Härle1, Sven Meyer2, Felix Vahldiek2, Albrecht Elsässer2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) has become a standard diagnostic tool in the catheterization laboratory. FFR evaluation studies were based on pressure recordings during steady-state maximum hyperemia. Commercially available computer systems detect the lowest Pd/Pa ratio automatically, which might not always be measured during steady-state hyperemia. We sought to compare the automatically detected FFR and true steady-state FFR. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Pressure measurement traces of 105 coronary lesions from 77 patients with intermediate coronary lesions or multivessel disease were reviewed. In all patients, hyperemia had been achieved by intravenous adenosine administration using a dosage of 140 µg/kg/min. In 42 lesions (40%) automatically detected FFR was lower than true steady-state FFR. Mean bias was 0.009 (standard deviation 0.015, limits of agreement -0.02, 0.037). In 4 lesions (3.8%) both methods lead to different treatment recommendations, in all 4 cases instantaneous wave-free ratio confirmed steady-state FFR.
CONCLUSIONS: Automatically detected FFR was slightly lower than steady-state FFR in more than one-third of cases. Consequently, interpretation of automatically detected FFR values closely below the cutoff value requires special attention.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adenosine; FFR; Hyperemia; Intracoronary pressure measurement; iFR

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26208615     DOI: 10.1007/s00392-015-0894-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol        ISSN: 1861-0684            Impact factor:   5.460


  33 in total

1.  Development and validation of a new adenosine-independent index of stenosis severity from coronary wave-intensity analysis: results of the ADVISE (ADenosine Vasodilator Independent Stenosis Evaluation) study.

Authors:  Sayan Sen; Javier Escaned; Iqbal S Malik; Ghada W Mikhail; Rodney A Foale; Rafael Mila; Jason Tarkin; Ricardo Petraco; Christopher Broyd; Richard Jabbour; Amarjit Sethi; Christopher S Baker; Micheal Bellamy; Mahmud Al-Bustami; David Hackett; Masood Khan; David Lefroy; Kim H Parker; Alun D Hughes; Darrel P Francis; Carlo Di Mario; Jamil Mayet; Justin E Davies
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2011-12-07       Impact factor: 24.094

Review 2.  Coronary pressure-derived fractional flow reserve measurements: recommendations for standardization, recording, and reporting as a core laboratory technique. Proposals for integration in clinical trials.

Authors:  Pascal Vranckx; Donald E Cutlip; Eugène P McFadden; Morton J Kern; Roxana Mehran; Olivier Muller
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 6.546

Review 3.  Physiological basis of clinically used coronary hemodynamic indices.

Authors:  Jos A E Spaan; Jan J Piek; Julien I E Hoffman; Maria Siebes
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2006-01-24       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  Coronary pressure never lies.

Authors:  Jacques J Koolen; Nico H J Pijls
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2008-08-01       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Perfusion-induced changes in cardiac contractility depend on capillary perfusion.

Authors:  M A Dijkman; J W Heslinga; P Sipkema; N Westerhof
Journal:  Am J Physiol       Date:  1998-02

6.  Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation.

Authors:  Pim A L Tonino; William F Fearon; Bernard De Bruyne; Keith G Oldroyd; Massoud A Leesar; Peter N Ver Lee; Philip A Maccarthy; Marcel Van't Veer; Nico H J Pijls
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2010-06-22       Impact factor: 24.094

7.  Does visual interpretation of the coronary arteriogram predict the physiologic importance of a coronary stenosis?

Authors:  C W White; C B Wright; D B Doty; L F Hiratza; C L Eastham; D G Harrison; M L Marcus
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1984-03-29       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Cardiovascular and respiratory effects of adenosine in conscious man. Evidence for chemoreceptor activation.

Authors:  I Biaggioni; B Olafsson; R M Robertson; A S Hollister; D Robertson
Journal:  Circ Res       Date:  1987-12       Impact factor: 17.367

9.  Fractional flow reserve and minimum Pd/Pa ratio during intravenous adenosine infusion: very similar but not always the same.

Authors:  Mauro Echavarria-Pinto; Ricardo Petraco; Tim P van de Hoef; Nieves Gonzalo; Sukhjinder Nijjer; Jason M Tarkin; Borja Ibanez; Sayan Sen; Pilar Jimenez-Quevedo; Ivan J Nunez-Gil; Luis Nombela-Franco; Fernando Alfonso; Antonio Fernandez-Ortiz; Carlos Macaya; Jan J Piek; Justin Davies; Javier Escaned
Journal:  EuroIntervention       Date:  2016-01-22       Impact factor: 6.534

Review 10.  Ageing and microvasculature.

Authors:  Maria Giovanna Scioli; Alessandra Bielli; Gaetano Arcuri; Amedeo Ferlosio; Augusto Orlandi
Journal:  Vasc Cell       Date:  2014-09-16
View more
  3 in total

1.  Comparison of standard- and high-dose intracoronary adenosine for the measurement of coronary fractional flow reserve (FFR).

Authors:  Jens Röther; Stephan Achenbach; Monique Tröbs; Florian Blachutzik; Holger Nef; Mohamed Marwan; Christian Schlundt
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2016-06-15       Impact factor: 5.460

2.  Real-world use of fractional flow reserve in Germany: results of the prospective ALKK coronary angiography and PCI registry.

Authors:  Tobias Härle; Uwe Zeymer; Matthias Hochadel; Ralf Zahn; Sebastian Kerber; Bernhard Zrenner; Volker Schächinger; Bernward Lauer; Thorsten Runde; Albrecht Elsässer
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2016-09-06       Impact factor: 5.460

3.  Influence of hydrostatic pressure on intracoronary indices of stenosis severity in vivo.

Authors:  Tobias Härle; Mareike Luz; Sven Meyer; Felix Vahldiek; Pim van der Harst; Randy van Dijk; Daan Ties; Javier Escaned; Justin Davies; Albrecht Elsässer
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2017-11-02       Impact factor: 5.460

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.