Key result
The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) provided a biased estimate of fractional flow reserve (FFR), being +0.09 higher on average with ±0.17 limits of agreement.
Why the study?
Does the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) accurately approximate fractional flow reserve (FFR)?
Population
1,129 patients with pressure-only and combined pressure-flow clinical data from several centers, plus 1,000…
Comparison
Instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) vs Fractional flow reserve (FFR)
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
iFR should not substitute for FFR; challenges resting-hyperemic resistance equivalence and leaves diagnostic interchangeability open.
Observational (n=1,129)
Yes
Does the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) accurately approximate fractional flow reserve (FFR)?
Mean Difference: 0.09
iFR provides a biased and uncertain estimate of FFR, as the fundamental assumption that diastolic resting myocardial resistance equals mean hyperemic resistance is incorrect.
Johnson et al. (2013) reported an observational. Instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) vs. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) was evaluated on Difference between iFR and FFR (Mean difference +0.09). The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) provided a biased estimate of fractional flow reserve (FFR), being +0.09 higher on average with ±0.17 limits of agreement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: