Key result
FFR alters revascularization decisions in ~21% of intermediate coronary lesions, primarily by avoiding unnecessary stents.
Why the study?
Does Fractional Flow Reserve assessment guide the decision for coronary revascularization in patients with coronary artery disease?
Cohort (n=40)
No
Does Fractional Flow Reserve assessment guide the decision for coronary revascularization in patients with coronary artery disease?
FFR provides a reliable and objective assessment of intermediate coronary lesions, significantly influencing revascularization decisions in an Indian cohort.
FFR may refine revascularization decisions for intermediate lesions; extends prior data to an Indian cohort but remains hypothesis-generating.
Results: A total of 40 patients were enrolled for the study among which 79.3% were males and 20.7% females. The Mean age ( SD) in female group was 64.5 6.097 years and that in male group was 59.3 11.02 years. Eight coronary lesions were found to be of intermediate/ uncertain severity and were subjected to FFR. All lesions having FFR 0.8 underwent intervention while none of the lesion having FFR value of 0.8 were intervened. So there was significant association found between FFR value and decision changed. Conclusion: FFR provides a reliable and objective assessment of intermediate/uncertain lesions leading to better revascularization decisions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dr Vikram Singh (2019) conducted a cohort in Coronary Artery Disease (n=40). Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) vs. Angiography alone was evaluated on Change in revascularization decision. Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) changed the revascularization decision in 20.6% of intermediate or uncertain coronary lesions, leading to the avoidance of stents in 8 lesions and appropriate revascularization in 4 additional lesions.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: