Key result
Combined pressure and flow measurements provide a comprehensive assessment of ischemic heart disease, though fractional flow reserve and coronary flow reserve disagree in 40% of cases.
Combined assessment of FFR and CFR provides a comprehensive evaluation of ischemic heart disease, with discrepancies between the two indices offering prognostic value regarding epicardial versus microvascular disease.
The complexity of ischemic heart disease (IHD) comprehends disease in the succeeding perfusion domains of the vascular tree. Fractional flow reserve and coronary flow reserve are validated diagnostic modalities to identify myocardial ischemia, but solitarily do not suffice to objectify the respective contribution of obstructive and nonobstructive disease to IHD. Combined pressure and flow measurements deliver a comprehensive intracoronary assessment of IHD, although fractional flow reserve and coronary flow reserve disagree in 40% of the cases. Discrepancy between the indices does not reflect methodological failure, but explores divergent extremes of epicardial and microvascular disease, which holds vital prognostic value. We advocate critical revision of the current diagnostic and therapeutic approaches toward IHD. In this review, we deliver a perspective on the future developments in the diagnosis and treatment of IHD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wijntjens et al. (2015) conducted a review in Ischemic heart disease. Combined pressure and flow measurements (fractional flow reserve and coronary flow reserve) was evaluated. Combined pressure and flow measurements provide a comprehensive assessment of ischemic heart disease, though fractional flow reserve and coronary flow reserve disagree in 40% of cases.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: