This review comprehensively discusses the advantages, disadvantages, and current evidence for various invasive physiological indices used to determine the functional significance of coronary lesions in the catheterisation laboratory.
FFR remains reference for lesion significance; review leaves open comparative performance of proposed alternatives in routine practice.
Physiological measurements are now commonly used to assess coronary lesions in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory, and this practice is evidence-based and supported by clinical guidelines. Fractional flow reserve is currently the gold standard method to determine whether coronary lesions are functionally significant, and is used to guide revascularization. There are however several other physiological measurements that have been proposed as alternatives to the fractional flow reserve. This review aims to comprehensively discuss physiological indices that can be used in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory to determine the functional significance of coronary lesions. We will focus on their advantages and disadvantages, and the current evidence supporting their use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
AL-Obaidi et al. (2018) studied this question.