Key result
Angiography-based virtual fractional flow reserve techniques demonstrate good diagnostic accuracy for assessing hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis compared to invasive FFR.
Why the study?
New non- and less-invasive virtual FFR techniques have emerged to overcome the procedural and operator-related burden of invasive fractional flow reserve.
Does non-invasive angiographic-based fractional flow reserve accurately assess hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis compared to invasive FFR?
Does non-invasive angiographic-based fractional flow reserve accurately assess hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis compared to invasive FFR?
Angiography-based virtual FFR techniques show promising diagnostic accuracy compared to invasive FFR, potentially reducing procedural burden, though randomized clinical outcome trials are still needed.
New non- and less-invasive techniques have been developed to overcome the procedural and operator related burden of the fractional flow reserve (FFR) for the assessment of potentially significant stenosis in the coronary arteries. Virtual FFR-techniques can obviate the need for the additional flow or pressure wires as used for FFR measurements. This review provides an overview of the developments and validation of the virtual FFR-algorithms, states the challenges, discusses the upcoming clinical trials, and postulates the future role of virtual FFR in the clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peper et al. (2023) conducted a review in Coronary artery disease. Angiography-based virtual fractional flow reserve (vFFR) vs. Invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) was evaluated. Angiography-based virtual fractional flow reserve techniques demonstrate good diagnostic accuracy for assessing hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis compared to invasive FFR.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: