Key result
FFR detects myocardial ischemia with ~90% accuracy in patients with CAD.
Why the study?
What is the utility of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in the diagnosis and management of coronary artery disease?
What is the utility of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in the diagnosis and management of coronary artery disease?
FFR is a highly accurate physiological index for assessing the significance of coronary stenosis, offering specific and high spatial resolution information to guide management in various complex coronary conditions.
FFR ≤0.80 accurately flags ischemia during angiography; leaves open optimal thresholds and integration in evolving revascularization strategies.
Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is an index of the physiological significance of a coronary stenosis and is defined as the ratio of maximal blood flow in a stenotic artery to normal maximal flow. It can be easily measured during coronary angiography by calculating the ratio of distal coronary pressure to the aortic pressure. FFR in a normal coronary artery equals 1.0. An FFR value of ≤0.80 indicates ischemia with an accuracy of more than 90%. The information provided by FFR is similar to that obtained with myocardial perfusion studies, but it is more specific and has a better spatial resolution, because every artery or segment is analyzed separately. This review outlines the utility of FFR in a number of conditions including multivessel disease, left main coronary artery stenosis, bifurcation lesions, myocardial bridging and myocardial viability. Furthermore, this review discusses the correlations between FFR with intravascular ultrasound and the economic considerations of the procedure in patients with cor...
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hakeem et al. (2012) conducted a review in coronary artery disease. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) was evaluated. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) identifies myocardial ischemia with an accuracy of more than 90% at a threshold of ≤0.80 in patients with coronary artery disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: