Invasive fractional flow reserve: Which technology is best?

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

5-1-2020

Publication Title

Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions

Abstract

Invasive pressure measurements using hyperemic fractional flow reserve (FFR) and nonhyperemic pressure measurements (NHPR) are superior to angiography alone for assessment of 50-90% stenoses. FFR devices using piezoelectric and optical sensors achieve 94% concordance in FFR values; microcatheter designs have more lesion-crossing failures and less pressure drift compared with guidewire designs. Despite the similarity in statistical performance among FFR devices, interventional cardiologists may prefer to use NHPR to avoid the need for adenosine-related side effects, variations in vasodilator response, and limited application in patients with certain clinical and anatomic features.

Volume

95

Issue

6

First Page

1102

Last Page

1103

DOI

10.1002/ccd.28912

ISSN

1522-726X

PubMed ID

32421236

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS