Key result
Manual FFR pullbacks demonstrated excellent agreement with motorized pullbacks for calculating the pullback pressure gradient.
Why the study?
The study aimed to validate manual fractional flow reserve pullbacks for calculating the pullback pressure gradient against motorized pullbacks and to determine intra- and interoperator reproducibility.
Does manual FFR pullback provide accurate and reproducible pullback pressure gradient (PPG) calculations compared to motorized FFR pullbacks in patients with stable coronary artery disease?
Observational
Does manual FFR pullback provide accurate and reproducible pullback pressure gradient (PPG) calculations compared to motorized FFR pullbacks in patients with stable coronary artery disease?
Manual FFR pullbacks provide an accurate and highly reproducible method for calculating the pullback pressure gradient, comparable to motorized pullbacks.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Manual FFR pullbacks may enable routine PPG assessment; supports PPG validation but leaves outcome impact open.
Fractional flow reserve (FFR) pullbacks assess the location and magnitude of pressure drops along the coronary artery. The pullback pressure gradient (PPG) quantifies the FFR pullback curve and provides a numeric expression of focal versus diffuse coronary artery disease. This study aims (1) to validate the PPG using manual FFR pullbacks compared with motorized FFR pullbacks as a reference; and (2) to determine the intra- and interoperator reproducibility of the PPG derived from manual FFR pullbacks. Patients with stable coronary artery disease and an FFR ≤ 0.80 were included. All patients underwent FFR pullback evaluation either with a motorized device or manually, depending on the study cohort. The agreement of the PPG between repeated pullbacks was assessed using the Bland-Altman method. Overall, 116 FFR pullback maneuvers (96 manual and 20 motorized) were analyzed. There was excellent agreement between the PPG derived from manual and motorized pullbacks (mean difference -0.01 ± 0.07, 95% limits of agreement [LOA] -0.14 to 0.12). The intra- and interoperator reproducibility of PPG derived from manual pullbacks were excellent (mean difference <0.01, 95% LOA -0.11 to 0.12, and mean difference <0.01, 95% LOA -0.12 to 0.11, respectively). The duration of the pullback maneuver did not impact the reproducibility of the PPG (r = 0.12, 95% CI: -0.29 to 0.49, p = 0.567). Manual pullbacks allow for an accurate PPG calculation. The inter- and intraoperator reproducibility of PPG derived from manual pullbacks were excellent.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sonck et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Stable coronary artery disease. Manual FFR pullbacks vs. Motorized FFR pullbacks was evaluated on Agreement of the pullback pressure gradient (PPG) between manual and motorized pullbacks (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.12). Manual FFR pullbacks demonstrated excellent agreement with motorized pullbacks for calculating the pullback pressure gradient.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: