Why the study?
Does FFR-based deferral of non-culprit lesions in ACS patients carry a different risk of clinical events compared to FFR-based deferral in SCAD patients?
Does FFR-based deferral of non-culprit lesions in ACS patients carry a different risk of clinical events compared to FFR-based deferral in SCAD patients?
FFR-based deferral of non-culprit lesions in ACS patients is associated with a higher risk of subsequent clinical events compared to similar deferral in stable patients, suggesting that FFR may underestimate risk or that these lesions are inherently more vulnerable.
May warrant caution deferring non-culprit ACS lesions by FFR; leaves open ACS-specific thresholds and prospective validation.
Compared to the deferred lesions of SCAD patients, deferred non-culprit lesions of ACS on the basis of FFR showed a higher rate of clinical events, regardless of FFR range.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: