Why the study?
Does fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention improve outcomes and accurately assess non-culprit lesions in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome?
Does fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention improve outcomes and accurately assess non-culprit lesions in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome?
FFR assessment of non-culprit lesions in ACS shows promise for guiding complete revascularization, but its reliability may be affected by transient microvascular dysfunction in the acute phase.
Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is an evidence-based diagnostic tool of physiological significance of coronary artery stenosis in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). Due to microvascular dysfunction in acute coronary syndrome (ACS), information obtained from FFR assessment could be less reliable and, thus, its clinical role remains controversial. Indeed, results of currently published studies are essentially discrepant. Only a few randomized clinical trials have been performed showing the efficacy of FFR-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in ACS. Consequently, its role in acute scenarios remains substantially understudied. Herein, is presented the current state of knowledge re-garding FFR use in ACS setting. (Cardiol J 2017; 24, 4: 426-435).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Żuk et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: