Key result
Simulated fractional flow reserve (FFRCTS) using computational fluid dynamics closely matched invasive FFR (0.788 vs 0.79) in assessing the hemodynamic significance of coronary stenosis.
Why the study?
Does simulated FFRCTS using CFD and echocardiography boundary conditions accurately estimate invasive FFR in patients with coronary stenosis?
Observational (n=6)
Does simulated FFRCTS using CFD and echocardiography boundary conditions accurately estimate invasive FFR in patients with coronary stenosis?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.788% vs 0.79%
Computational fluid dynamics modeling using CCTA and echocardiography-derived boundary conditions can non-invasively estimate FFR values that closely match invasive measurements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports non-invasive FFR assessment; confirms CFD accuracy versus invasive measurement in RCT.
Lin et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Coronary artery stenosis (n=6). Simulated fractional flow reserve (FFRCTS) using computational fluid dynamics vs. Invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) was evaluated on Simulated FFRCTS compared with invasive FFR. Simulated fractional flow reserve (FFRCTS) using computational fluid dynamics closely matched invasive FFR (0.788 vs 0.79) in assessing the hemodynamic significance of coronary stenosis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: