Key result
iFR identifies hemodynamic significance in 65% of symptomatic myocardial bridge patients versus none with FFR.
Why the study?
Does instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) improve the detection of hemodynamically significant myocardial bridges compared to fractional flow reserve (FFR) in patients with angina and suspected myocardial bridges?
Observational (n=20)
Does instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) improve the detection of hemodynamically significant myocardial bridges compared to fractional flow reserve (FFR) in patients with angina and suspected myocardial bridges?
Absolute Event Rate: 65% vs 0%
Physiological evaluation of myocardial bridges with iFR appears to be more sensitive and consistent with patient symptoms and noninvasive test results compared to FFR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
iFR may better identify significant myocardial bridges than FFR in symptomatic patients; hypothesis-generating before guiding revascularization decisions.
Tarantini et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Myocardial bridge with angina and/or positive stress test (n=20). Instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) vs. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) was evaluated on Hemodynamic significance of myocardial bridge at baseline (iFR ≤0.89 vs FFR ≤0.80). Physiological evaluation of myocardial bridges using iFR identified hemodynamic significance in 65% of symptomatic patients at baseline, compared to 0% using FFR.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: