Why the study?
Does myocardial fractional flow reserve (FFR) provide concordant results with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) for the assessment of slotted-tube stent deployment in patients undergoing coronary angioplasty?
Does myocardial fractional flow reserve (FFR) provide concordant results with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) for the assessment of slotted-tube stent deployment in patients undergoing coronary angioplasty?
IVUS and FFR have substantial concordance for assessing slotted-tube stent deployment, although FFR values between 0.91 and 0.94 are difficult to interpret.
May support either IVUS or FFR for post-stent assessment; leaves open optimal FFR thresholds in angioplasty.
Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and myocardial fractional flow reserve (FFR) have been reported to provide similar results for assessment of coil stent deployment. Their relative value in slotted-tube stents has not been investigated. Fourteen patients subjected to coronary angioplasty and IVUS-guided elective stenting with a slotted-tube stent underwent IVUS assessment and FFR measurement following stent implantation at inflation pressures of 12 and 18 atm. FFR values (mean +/- SD) preangioplasty, postangioplasty, and poststenting at 12 atm and 18 atm, were 0.58 +/- 0.07, 0.83 +/- 0.05, 0.94 +/- 0.02, and 0.94 +/- 0.02, respectively. After inflation at 12 atm, the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the concordance of IVUS and FFR measurements was 0.89 (P = 0.02). Six patients had either an abnormal IVUS (n = 2) or FFR < 0.94 (n = 1) or both abnormal IVUS and FFR < 0.94 (n = 3) after the first inflation and had a second inflation at 18 atm. The area under the ROC curve for the concordance between IVUS and FFR final measurements was 0.855 (P = 0.10). Perfect concordance between IVUS and FFR was seen only for FFR values less than 0.91 or larger than 0.94. Overall, IVUS and FFR have substantial concordance with respect to slotted-tube stent deployment. However, FFR values between 0.91 and 0.94 after inflation are difficult to interpret.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Katritsis et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: