Key result
Fractional flow reserve (FFR) was found to be a better index for the physiological assessment of epicardial coronary artery stenosis than absolute or relative coronary flow reserve (CFR).
Why the study?
Is fractional flow reserve (FFR) a better index for physiological assessment of coronary stenosis compared to absolute or relative coronary flow reserve (CFR)?
Is fractional flow reserve (FFR) a better index for physiological assessment of coronary stenosis compared to absolute or relative coronary flow reserve (CFR)?
FFR is highlighted as a superior index for the physiological assessment of coronary stenosis compared to CFR due to its simplicity and reliability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports preferring FFR for stenosis assessment; leaves open prospective trials versus CFR.
Ge et al. (1998) conducted a review in Coronary artery stenosis. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) vs. Coronary flow reserve (CFR) was evaluated on Physiological assessment of epicardial coronary artery stenosis. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) was found to be a better index for the physiological assessment of epicardial coronary artery stenosis than absolute or relative coronary flow reserve (CFR).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: