PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
November 7, 2000Circulation101 citations

Diastolic Fractional Flow Reserve to Assess the Functional Severity of Moderate Coronary Artery Stenoses

View Full Paper
HTHirofumi TomiyamaHYHideo YoshidaNDNobutaka Doba

Structured PICO

Does diastolic FFR (d-FFR) provide comparable diagnostic accuracy to standard FFR for assessing the functional severity of moderate LAD stenoses?

P
Population
46 consecutive patients with a moderate stenosis in the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD)
I
Intervention
Measurement of diastolic fractional flow reserve (d-FFR)
C
Comparator
Measurement of standard fractional flow reserve (FFR), coronary flow reserve (CFR), and exercise myocardial thallium scintigraphy
O
Outcome
Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for functional severity compared to noninvasive testingsurrogate

Diastolic FFR and standard FFR demonstrate nearly identical diagnostic performance and cutoff values for assessing moderate LAD stenoses, confirming the physiological validity of standard FFR as the clinical index of choice.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Coronary blood flow occurs mainly during the diastolic phase of each cardiac cycle and is mainly dependent on diastolic driving pressure, especially in the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD). We hypothesized that calculation of the ratio of the diastolic driving pressure of a stenotic LAD to its normal value, namely diastolic FFR (d-FFR), might provide precise insight into the mechanism of FFR for assessment of the functional severity of the stenosis. We compared d-FFR with FFR, coronary flow reserve (CFR), and exercise myocardial thallium scintigraphy in an lesion of intermediate severity. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population consisted of 46 consecutive patients with a moderate stenosis in the LAD in whom simultaneous measurements of aortic pressure, left ventricular pressure, and coronary pressure distal to the stenosis were obtained. Coronary flow velocity was successfully measured with a Doppler guidewire in 37 of the 46 patients. Values for FFR, d-FFR, and CFR in the noninvasive test-positive group were significantly lower than those in the negative group. With cutoff values of 0.75, 0.76, and 2.0 for FFR, d-FFR, and CFR, sensitivities were 83.3%, 95.8%, and 88.2% and specificities were 100%, 100%, and 95.0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The close similarity of the sensitivity and specificity of FFR and d-FFR, around almost identical cutoff values (0.75 versus 0.76), confirms the physiological validity of FFR as a clinical standard. In clinical practice, FFR remains the index of choice for assessment of the functional severity of moderate coronary artery stenoses.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Tomiyama et al. (2000) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a7e84c1faef18a6d5338caahttps://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.102.19.2365
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Assessing coronary artery stenosis severity: In vitro validation of the concept of fractional flow reserve1999 · 16 citations
  2. 2Improved Assessment of Coronary Stenosis Severity Using the Relative Flow Velocity Reserve1998 · 123 citations
  3. 3Measurement of Fractional Flow Reserve to Assess the Functional Severity of Coronary-Artery Stenoses1996 · 2,317 citations
  4. 4Clinical assessment of resting full-cycle ratio and fractional flow reserve for coronary artery disease in a real-world cohort2022 · 10 citations
  5. 5Fractional Flow Reserve1995 · 746 citations