Why the study?
Discordance between FFR and RFR occurs in 15%-25% of cases when assessing intermediate coronary lesions, prompting the identification of clinical and angiographic predictors of discordance.
What are the clinical and angiographic predictors of discordance between FFR and RFR in patients with intermediate coronary lesions?
What are the clinical and angiographic predictors of discordance between FFR and RFR in patients with intermediate coronary lesions?
Active smoking, left anterior descending artery location, and greater stenosis severity are independent predictors of discordance between FFR and RFR in the assessment of intermediate coronary lesions.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) for assessing intermediate coronary lesions is well-established. However, discordance between these methods occurs in 15%-25% of cases. The objective is to identify clinical and angiographic predictors of discordance between FFR and RFR in a Spanish cohort. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of 94 patients with 107 intermediate coronary lesions was conducted. FFR and RFR were measured, and logistic regression was used to identify predictors of discordance. RESULTS: Discordance occurred in 15.9% of cases. Independent predictors were active smoking, lesions in the left anterior descending artery, and higher area stenosis percentage. CONCLUSION: Smoking, LAD lesions, and stenosis severity predict discordance between FFR and RFR. Further studies are needed to clarify the phenomena that cause such discordance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guirao-Balsalobre et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: