Published in:
01-02-2016 | Original Paper
Differences between automatically detected and steady-state fractional flow reserve
Published in: Clinical Research in Cardiology | Issue 2/2016
Login to get accessAbstract
Background
Measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) has become a standard diagnostic tool in the catheterization laboratory. FFR evaluation studies were based on pressure recordings during steady-state maximum hyperemia. Commercially available computer systems detect the lowest Pd/Pa ratio automatically, which might not always be measured during steady-state hyperemia. We sought to compare the automatically detected FFR and true steady-state FFR.
Methods and Results
Pressure measurement traces of 105 coronary lesions from 77 patients with intermediate coronary lesions or multivessel disease were reviewed. In all patients, hyperemia had been achieved by intravenous adenosine administration using a dosage of 140 µg/kg/min. In 42 lesions (40 %) automatically detected FFR was lower than true steady-state FFR. Mean bias was 0.009 (standard deviation 0.015, limits of agreement −0.02, 0.037). In 4 lesions (3.8 %) both methods lead to different treatment recommendations, in all 4 cases instantaneous wave-free ratio confirmed steady-state FFR.
Conclusions
Automatically detected FFR was slightly lower than steady-state FFR in more than one-third of cases. Consequently, interpretation of automatically detected FFR values closely below the cutoff value requires special attention.