Key result
Fractional flow reserve is a reliable physiologic parameter for assessing the functional significance of coronary stenosis, and an FFR-guided revascularization strategy is more effective than an angiography-guided strategy.
Why the study?
Does a Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided revascularization strategy improve outcomes compared to an angiography-guided strategy in patients with coronary artery disease?
Does a Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided revascularization strategy improve outcomes compared to an angiography-guided strategy in patients with coronary artery disease?
FFR is a physiologic parameter that can assess the functional significance of coronary stenosis and guide revascularization more effectively than angiography alone.
Revascularization of coronary artery stenosis should be based on the objective evidence of ischemia. It is common practice for physicians to make decisions on revascularization in the cardiac catheterization laboratory based on the results of angiography, despite the fact that angiographic information does not correlate well with the functional significance of a coronary lesion. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is a physiologic parameter which can be measured easily during the invasive procedure and can assess the functional significance of coronary stenosis. FFR-guided revascularization strategy is reported to be more effective than angiography-guided strategy in patients with coronary artery disease. Moreover, novel technologies based on FFR have been developed and will soon be incorporated into clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2012) conducted a review in Coronary artery disease. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) vs. Angiography-guided strategy was evaluated. Fractional flow reserve is a reliable physiologic parameter for assessing the functional significance of coronary stenosis, and an FFR-guided revascularization strategy is more effective than an angiography-guided strategy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: