Key result
Non-hyperemic pressure ratios like iFR reliably guide coronary revascularization as an alternative to FFR.
Why the study?
Despite robust evidence, fractional flow reserve adoption is limited by procedural time, hyperemic agent costs, and patient discomfort, prompting the introduction and clinical need to review non-hyperemic pressure ratios.
Do non-hyperemic pressure ratios provide comparable diagnostic accuracy and clinical outcomes to fractional flow reserve in assessing coronary atherosclerotic disease?
Design
Review
Authors
Loading...
May support adenosine-free assessment in select cases; leaves open large RCTs for outcome confirmation.
Do non-hyperemic pressure ratios provide comparable diagnostic accuracy and clinical outcomes to fractional flow reserve in assessing coronary atherosclerotic disease?
Non-hyperemic pressure ratios offer a safe, effective, and more comfortable alternative to fractional flow reserve for the physiological assessment of coronary stenoses.
Chamié et al. (2023) conducted a review in Coronary artery disease. Non-hyperemic pressure ratios (NHPRs) vs. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) was evaluated. Non-hyperemic pressure ratios, including the instantaneous wave-free ratio, provide a reliable alternative to fractional flow reserve for guiding coronary revascularization without pharmacological hyperemia.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: