In an in vitro hydraulic model, pressure-derived FFR showed good correlation with flow-derived FFR (r2 > 0.95), irrespective of changes in myocardial resistance or aortic perfusion pressure.
Does pressure-derived FFR correlate with flow-derived FFR in an in vitro hydraulic model of a coronary artery?
In an in vitro hydraulic model, pressure-derived FFR correlates strongly with flow-derived FFR, supporting the validity of the FFR concept under constant myocardial resistance conditions.
Effect estimate: r2 > 0.95
Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is an index to assess the functional obstruction of an isolated coronary artery stenosis. It can be measured using only pressure measurements proximal (Pa) and distal (Pd) to the stenosis: FFR = P(d)/P(a). We studied the relation of pressure and flow-derived measurements of FFR in a pulsatile, hydraulic model of a coronary artery under physiological aorta pressure (80-110 mm Hg) and coronary flow (140-260 ml/min) conditions. Measurements were done at baseline and for several stenosis levels obtained with an external occluder. We found good correlations (r2 > 0.95) between pressure and flow-derived FFR, irrespective of isolated changes in myocardial resistance or aortic perfusion pressure. The basic assumption, i.e., that myocardial resistance is constant, was identified as most crucial in the validity of the concept of pressure-derived FFR. The agreement between our data and published animal and human studies indicates that this is most probably the case in hyperaemic conditions.
Segers et al. (Mon,) conducted a other in Coronary artery stenosis. Pressure-derived FFR vs. Flow-derived FFR was evaluated on Correlation between pressure and flow-derived FFR (r2 > 0.95). In an in vitro hydraulic model, pressure-derived FFR showed good correlation with flow-derived FFR (r2 > 0.95), irrespective of changes in myocardial resistance or aortic perfusion pressure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: