Clinical implications of three-vessel fractional flow reserve measurement in patients with coronary artery disease

Abstract

3V FFR-FRIENDS study (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01621438, NCT01621438).

Clinical Outcome of Lesions With Discordant Results Among Different Invasive Physiologic Indices ― Resting Distal Coronary to Aortic Pressure Ratio, Resting Full-Cycle Ratio, Diastolic Pressure Ratio, Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio, and Fractional Flow Reserve ―

“…The study population was derived from the 3V FFR-FRIENDS study (3-vessel FFR for the assessment of total stenosis burden and its clinical impact in patients with coronary artery disease, NCT01621438) 16 and the 13 N-ammonia PET registry. 10,17, 18 In both studies, patients with depressed left ventricular systolic function (ejection fraction <35%), acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI) within 72 h, previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), chronic renal disease, abnormal epicardial coronary flow (TIMI flow <3) or planned CABG after diagnostic angiography were excluded.…”

Comparison of Resting Full Cycle Ratio with Fractional Flow Reserve in Indian Population

“…7 A substudy conducted in over 435 patients suggested that RFR and IFR have same diagnostic accuracy in predicting cardiovascular outcomes. 8 Recent study done in acute myocardial infarction patients comparing RFR with FFR observed that correlation between RFR and FFR was 0.84, overall agreement was 82%. 9 Studies comparing FFR and RFR are still lacking, so we conducted a study on 33 patients who were undergoing physiological assessment FFR to identify the significance of lesion; RFR values were also taken.…”

Consensus document for invasive coronary physiologic assessment in Asia-Pacific countries

“…This could be either in the form of decisionmaking strategy trials like RIPCORD, or in-country large registries like SCAAR (Sweden). Several groups of APAC countries recently published the results of important physiologic studies and those study results from APAC need to be highlighted [19,26,[45][46][47][48][49][50]. The group also felt that in-country registry data can provide good scientific evidence to respective health authorities to incorporate invasive physiology in guidelines and reimbursement.…”