Why the study?
Does the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and resting Pd/Pa provide comparable accuracy to fractional flow reserve (FFR) in assessing coronary lesions?
Does the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and resting Pd/Pa provide comparable accuracy to fractional flow reserve (FFR) in assessing coronary lesions?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Nonhyperemic indices iFR and resting Pd/Pa demonstrate approximately 80% accuracy compared to FFR, indicating they may be useful alternatives to hyperemic assessment in selected patients.
This comprehensive core laboratory analysis comparing iFR and Pd/Pa with FFR demonstrated an overall accuracy of ~80% for both nonhyperemic indices, which can be improved to ≥90% in a subset of lesions. Clinical outcome studies are required to determine whether the use of iFR or Pd/Pa might obviate the need for hyperemia in selected patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jeremias et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: