+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Physiological assessment of coronary lesion severity: fractional flow reserve versus nonhyperaemic indices



Physiological assessment of coronary lesion severity: fractional flow reserve versus nonhyperaemic indices



Coronary Artery Disease 26 Suppl 1: E8-14



Coronary angiography alone cannot accurately identify the haemodynamic impact of a coronary artery stenosis. Current international guidelines for myocardial revascularization recommend that inducible ischaemia should be demonstrated before the consideration of percutaneous coronary intervention. Invasive physiological assessment of coronary stenosis severity has increasingly been utilized for this purpose and use of the best validated technique, fractional flow reserve (FFR), has been shown to improve clinical outcomes in patients with stable and unstable coronary artery disease. This has led to the use of FFR being recommended in international revascularization guidelines, despite which, clinical uptake has been limited. One potential reason for slow adoption has been the requirement for maximal hyperaemia at the time of FFR measurement, usually achieved by the administration of pharmacological vasodilators such as adenosine. In some healthcare systems, adenosine is expensive and, in addition, its use can be associated with significant, albeit transient, adverse effects that patients (and some operators) find uncomfortable. Consequently, several methods of nonhyperaemic lesion assessment and their potential role in decision making have been reported. In this review we will review and discuss the current evidence for hyperaemic and nonhyperaemic methods of lesion assessment. We will also look at hybrid strategies that utilize both hyperaemic and nonhyperaemic methods as a means of potentially maintaining diagnostic accuracy while minimizing the requirement for adenosine administration and discuss whether or not they represent viable clinical alternatives.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 058555288

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 26247276

DOI: 10.1097/MCA.0000000000000212


Related references

Lesion Severity Index, a new nonhyperemic physiologic parameter for the assessment of coronary artery stenosis A comparison to fractional flow reserve. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 43(5 Supplement A): 92A, March 3, 2004

Physiological basis and long-term clinical outcome of discordance between fractional flow reserve and coronary flow velocity reserve in coronary stenoses of intermediate severity. Circulation. Cardiovascular Interventions 7(3): 301-311, 2015

Diastolic fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of moderate coronary artery stenoses: comparison with fractional flow reserve and coronary flow velocity reserve. Circulation 102(19): 2365-2370, 2000

Comparison between visual assessment and quantitative angiography versus fractional flow reserve for native coronary narrowings of moderate severity. American Journal of Cardiology 90(3): 210-215, August 1, 2002

Baseline instantaneous wave-free ratio as a pressure-only estimation of underlying coronary flow reserve: results of the JUSTIFY-CFR Study (Joined Coronary Pressure and Flow Analysis to Determine Diagnostic Characteristics of Basal and Hyperemic Indices of Functional Lesion Severity-Coronary Flow Reserve). Circulation. Cardiovascular Interventions 7(4): 492-502, 2015

Anatomic versus physiologic assessment of coronary artery disease. Role of coronary flow reserve, fractional flow reserve, and positron emission tomography imaging in revascularization decision-making. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 62(18): 1639-1653, 2014

Assessment of left anterior descending artery stenosis of intermediate severity by fractional flow reserve, instantaneous wave-free ratio, and non-invasive coronary flow reserve. International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging (): -, 2016

Assessment of Coronary Artery Stenosis Severity and Location Quantitative Analysis of Transmural Perfusion Gradients by High-Resolution Magnetic Resonance Versus Fractional Flow Reserve. 2013

Severity of morphological lesion complexity affects fractional flow reserve in intermediate coronary stenosis. Journal of Cardiology 66(3): 239-245, 2016

Lesion characteristics of coronary arteries associated with a mismatch between angiographic severity of stenosis and fractional flow reserve. Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics (): -, 2016

Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: 2-year follow-up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 56(3): 177-184, 2010

Recent myocardial infarction does not limit the utility of fractional flow reserve for the physiologic assessment of lesion severity. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 41(6 Supplement A): 61A, March 19, 2003

High left ventricular mass does not limit the utility of fractional flow reserve for the physiologic assessment of lesion severity. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 43(5 Supplement A): 76A, March 3, 2004

Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 55(25): 2816-2821, 2010

The impact of age on fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) trial substudy. International Journal of Cardiology 177(1): 66-70, 2015