ライフサイエンスコーパス: FFR

1 FFR derived from standard coronary CT angiography (FFRCT

2 FFR in and around the gray zone bears a major prognostic

3 FFR in patients with recent non-ST-segment-elevation myo

4 FFR value, the time to reach FFR and patient discomfort

5 FFR varied from 0.20 to 1.00 (average 0.74+/-0.16), and

6 FFR were compared between restrictive and least-restrict

7 FFR, iFR, and whole-cycle Pd/Pa indices were recalculate

8 FFR-driven change in management strategy (medical therap

9 d FFR measurements were related by PFPA=1.01 FFR-0.03 (R(2)=0.85) and PMSM=1.03 FFR-0.03 (R(2)=0.80)

10 PFPA=1.01 FFR-0.03 (R(2)=0.85) and PMSM=1.03 FFR-0.03 (R(2)=0.80) for FPA and MSM techniques, respect

11 for the left coronary artery, FFRic), and 2 FFR measurements during continuous intravenous infusion

12 independent predictors of bias between the 2 FFR measurements.

13 scular events rate was observed across the 3 FFR strata, especially with proximal lesion location.

14 r events rate was not different across the 3 FFR strata.

15 Of 17 380 FFR measurements, 1459 patients were included.

16 e, after MV stenting, and POT followed by 95 FFR measurements of the SB.

17 An abnormal FFR has been demonstrated to identify high-risk lesions

18 001) and in vessels with normal and abnormal FFR (P < 0.001).

19 and may predispose to ischemia and abnormal FFR.

20 ve also been strongly implicated in abnormal FFR.

21 , 82%, and 85% for the detection of abnormal FFR.

22 In ACS, FFR was performed in 1.4 lesions per patient, mostly in

23 Final decision after FFR and 1-year clinical outcome were recorded.

24 he matched and unmatched cohorts, across all FFR categories, ACS patients had a significantly higher

25 Although FFR is increasingly used for clinical decision making in

26 ignificant after valve replacement, although FFR-guided interventions were infrequent even in patient

27 An FFR-related serious adverse event occurred in 2 patients

28 dered obstructive if greater than 50% and an FFR abnormal if lower than 0.8.

29 patients with single-segment disease and an FFR value within the gray zone or within the 2 neighbori

30 value, and negative predictive value for an FFR of </=0.8 were 91.4%, 92.2%, 76%, and 97%, respectiv

31 performed in 189 vessels (80 of which had an FFR </= 0.80); these measurements were regarded as the r

32 scularization strategy was noninferior to an FFR-guided revascularization strategy with respect to th

33 Using an FFR cutoff value of 0.80, the sensitivity, specificity,

34 ; 65.9% men; 124 lesions; 38 lesions with an FFR </= 0.8) were included.

35 covariates independently associated with an FFR of 0.8 or less, a score was determined on the basis

36 the lesion level, deferral of those with an FFR</=0.80 was associated with a 3.1-fold increase in th

37 ardial infarction, as well as costs, with an FFR-based strategy compared with a conventional angiogra

38 In multivariable Cox regression analysis, FFR was significantly associated with MACE up to 2 years

39 ciated with maximal stenosis (P < 0.001) and FFR (P < 0.001).

40 ts who underwent CT coronary angiography and FFR assessment with one or more discrete lesion(s) of in

41 nd the relationship between DSVE, DSQCA, and FFR was analyzed.

42 ent, outlining developments for both iFR and FFR in new clinical domains beyond the confines of stabl

43 th a focus on the evolving future of iFR and FFR, the authors describe how physiological assessment w

44 Perfusion (P) and FFR measurements were related by PFPA=1.01 FFR-0.03 (R(2

45 distal pressure/aortic pressure at rest, and FFR were measured in 763 patients from 12 centers.

46 The correlation between RFR and FFR was moderate (r=0.54; P<0.01).

47 hic findings, including maximal stenosis and FFR measurements.

48 oximal location of the lesion, B2/C type and FFR.

49 Baseline FFR values did not differ between vessels with versus wi

50 We also demonstrate a dissociation between FFR-related cortical activity from that related to the l

51 The relationship between FFR and 2-year MACE was assessed as a continuous functio

52 tion, in diabetics, the relationship between FFR and angiographic indices was particularly weak (C st

53 ught to investigate the relationship between FFR values and vessel-related clinical outcome.

54 ide, and overall FFR, but homicide and Black FFR appear unaffected.

55 time periods, with either homicide or Black FFR-population subsets accounting for 41.7% of firearm d

56 Both FFR and iFR had significantly lower misclassification th

57 tients in whom all stenoses were assessed by FFR and who were treated with medical therapy alone.

58 ance of 133 coronary lesions was assessed by FFR in 54 patients with severe aortic valve stenosis bef

59 ry disease, stenosis severity as assessed by FFR is a major and independent predictor of lesion-relat

60 The prevalence of CAD defined by FFR (<0.8) was 56.7% (85 of 150 patients).

61 e detection of significant CAD as defined by FFR.

62 A management strategy guided by FFR, divergent from that suggested by angiography, inclu

63 which at least 1 lesion was interrogated by FFR, were prospectively enrolled in a multicenter regist

64 tenosis, 30%-90%; n=75) were interrogated by FFR.

65 In patients with ACS, reclassification by FFR was high and similar to those with non-ACS (38% vers

66 3-dimensional coronary tree with color-coded FFR values at any epicardial location.

67 We systematically compared FFR measurements during intracoronary and intravenous ap

68 oronary CT angiography-derived computational FFR for the detection of functionally important coronary

69 oronary CT angiography-derived computational FFR, coronary CT angiography, and quantitative coronary

70 characteristic curve (AUC) for computational FFR (AUC, 0.83) than for coronary CT angiography (AUC, 0

71 ) stenosis, the sensitivity of computational FFR was 87.3% (95% CI: 76.5%, 94.3%) and the specificity

72 FFR</=0.80; DS>/=50%), negative concordance (FFR>0.80; DS<50%), positive mismatch (FFR</=0.80; DS<50%

73 to FFR and %DS values: positive concordance (FFR</=0.80; DS>/=50%), negative concordance (FFR>0.80; D

74 CT-FFR has demonstrated significant improvement in specific

75 CT-FFR, CT myocardial perfusion imaging, and transluminal a

76 (8) will a workstation-based CT-FFR be mandatory?

77 (3) can CT-FFR guide intervention without invasive FFR confirmation

78 tudies, (2) is the diagnostic accuracy of CT-FFR sufficient?

79 (4) what are the long-term outcomes of CT-FFR-guided treatment and how do they compare with other

80 ) what degree of stenosis on CTA warrants CT-FFR?

81 (7) how will CT-FFR influence other functional imaging test utilization,

82 Angiography-derived FFR measurements (FFRangio) may have several advantages.

83 microcatheter and the pressure wire-derived FFR values was -0.022 (95% confidence interval, -0.029 t

84 but may underestimate pressure wire-derived FFR.

85 ascularized (7.3%) or left untreated despite FFR</=0.80 (13.6%; log-rank P=0.014).

86 When using a dichotomous FFR value of 0.80, C statistic was significantly higher

87 R for flow-limiting coronary artery disease (FFR</=0.8) in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myo

88 traditional coronary guidewire, facilitates FFR assessment but may underestimate pressure wire-deriv

89 tcome of patients reclassified based on FFR (FFR against angiography) was as good as that of nonrecla

90 diagnostic accuracy thresholds were met for FFR-CT values lower than 0.53 or above 0.93 and lower th

91 l) diagnostic accuracy threshold was met for FFR-CT values lower than 0.63 or above 0.83.

92 The strongest increase in MACE occurred for FFR values between 0.80 and 0.60.

93 an (+/-median absolute deviation) values for FFR, iFR, and whole-cycle Pd/Pa were 0.81 (+/-0.11), 0.9

94 METHODS AND R3F (French FFR Registry) and POST-IT (Portuguese Study on the Evalu

95 ts (6%) in whom the information derived from FFR was disregarded, a dire outcome was observed.

96 Mean time from FFR evaluation to CMR was 6.1+/-3.1 days.

97 Functional FFR variations after TAVI changed the indication to trea

98 ve mismatch and negative concordance groups (FFR>0.80; hazard ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 0

99 ve concordance and positive mismatch groups (FFR</=0.80; hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval,

100 Patients allocated to FFR-guided PCI had FFR measurements of all stenotic arteries and PCI was do

101 r the left coronary artery) yields identical FFR results compared with intravenous infusion (140 mug/

102 operating characteristic analysis identified FFR cutoffs (best predictive accuracy for MACE) of <0.84

103 l stenotic arteries and PCI was done only if FFR was 0.80 or less.

104 We measured Pd/Pa, iFR, FFR, and hyperemic iFR.

105 No significant overall change in FFR values was found before and after the aortic valve s

106 rtex is related to individual differences in FFR-fundamental frequency (f0) strength, a finding that

107 A larger increase in FFR is associated with greater coronary stenosis severit

108 e decrease in MACE per 0.05-unit increase in FFR was statistically significant even after adjustment

109 e in the risk of MACE per 0.05-U increase in FFR.

110 A different trend in FFR groups (positive if </=0.8; negative if >0.8) was fo

111 Hemodynamics including FFR, absolute coronary flow, and the coronary flow veloc

112 MACE significantly increased with increasing FFR quartiles.

113 FFR-CT must be able to interpret individual FFR-CT results to determine subsequent patient care.

114 linicians a means of interpreting individual FFR-CT results with respect to the range of invasive FFR

115 erpret the diagnostic accuracy of individual FFR-CT results.

116 s were to evaluate the impact of integrating FFR on management decisions and on clinical outcome of p

117 Invasive FFR measurement was performed in 189 vessels (80 of whic

118 gh concordance between FFRangio and invasive FFR.

119 pearman rho=0.90; P<0.001) with the invasive FFR measurements, which ranged from 0.5 to 1 (median 0.8

120 ected or known CAD in comparison to invasive FFR measurement.

121 acification have been studied using invasive FFR as the gold standard.

122 y of FFRCT techniques compared with invasive FFR.

123 n CT-FFR guide intervention without invasive FFR confirmation?

124 esults with respect to the range of invasive FFRs that this interpretation might likely represent.

125 sure-monitoring microcatheter measures lower FFR compared with a pressure wire, but the diagnostic im

126 mean percent stenosis of 58+/-12% and a mean FFR of 0.82+/-0.09.

127 lesions were evaluated in 918 patients (mean FFR, 0.81+/-0.1).

128 The mean FFR value from the microcatheter was significantly lower

129 aluated against those of invasively measured FFR by using C statistics.

130 Median FFR was significantly lower in the MACE group versus the

131 bias or difference between the microcatheter FFR and the pressure wire FFR, as assessed by Bland-Altm

132 When the microcatheter FFR was added to this model, it was the only independent

133 (FFR</=0.80; DS<50%), and negative mismatch (FFR>0.80; DS>/=50%).

134 dance (FFR>0.80; DS<50%), positive mismatch (FFR</=0.80; DS<50%), and negative mismatch (FFR>0.80; DS

135 Moreover, FFR-based deferral to medical treatment was as safe in p

136 the majority of studies reporting a negative FFR, while others report either a biphasic or a positive

137 Conversely, negative FFR values improved after TAVI (0.92+/-0.06 versus 0.93+

138 in the gray zone or within the 2 neighboring FFR strata (0.70-0.75 and 0.81-0.85) were included.

139 Nevertheless, FFR variations after TAVI are minor and crossed the diag

140 n was deferred on the basis of a nonischemic FFR (>0.75).

141 ary intervention on the basis of nonischemic FFR in patients with an initial presentation of ACS is a

142 vention deferred on the basis of nonischemic FFR.

143 Having a normal FFR requires unimpaired vasoregulatory ability and signi

144 ubstudy to assess the diagnostic accuracy of FFR compared with 3.0-T stress CMR perfusion.

145 The diagnostic accuracy of FFR-CT varies markedly across the spectrum of disease.

146 he overall per-vessel diagnostic accuracy of FFR-CT was 81.9% (95% CI, 79.4%-84.4%).

147 studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of FFR-CT.

148 f an infarct-related artery, the addition of FFR-guided complete revascularization of non-infarct-rel

149 on rapid flow analysis for the assessment of FFR.

150 review focuses on the fundamental basics of FFR testing, clinical evidence, and limitations.

151 The color-coded display of FFR values during coronary angiography facilitates the i

152 Noninvasive estimation of FFR by quantitative perfusion positron emission tomograp

153 ST-IT (Portuguese Study on the Evaluation of FFR-Guided Treatment of Coronary Disease), sharing a com

154 y demonstrated the safety and feasibility of FFR measurement in patients with non-ST-segment-elevatio

155 d Multicenter Registries - Implementation of FFR in Routine Practice).

156 Routine integration of FFR into the decision-making process of ACS patients wit

157 As a measure of FFR, we tested the effects of changes in stimulation fre

158 erence between the diagnostic performance of FFR and iFR (P=0.125).

159 For the cut point of FFR, iFR, and whole-cycle Pd/Pa, 34.6% (155), 50.1% (224

160 The results confirm the long-term safety of FFR-guided PCI in patients with multivessel disease.

161 e emerged and they can provide simulation of FFR using coronary artery images acquired from coronary

162 A strategy of FFR-guided PCI resulted in a significant decrease of maj

163 d improved clinical outcomes with the use of FFR to guide coronary revascularization, including a red

164 However, despite the relative ease of use of FFR, multiple technical factors can impair its accuracy,

165 gated the clinical and prognostic utility of FFR in ACS patients with percutaneous coronary intervent

166 s indicated that the optimal cutoff value of FFR for demonstrating reversible ischemia on CMR was </=

167 e positive and negative predictive values of FFR for flow-limiting coronary artery disease (FFR</=0.8

168 ar outcome of patients reclassified based on FFR (FFR against angiography) was as good as that of non

169 cardiologist were unaware of the findings on FFR.

170 go revascularization guided by either iFR or FFR.

171 ssigned to undergo angiography-guided PCI or FFR-guided PCI.

172 d tomographic and fractional flow reserve or FFR.

173 emodynamically significant (>90% stenosis or FFR</=0.80).

174 iatric, and adult suicide, White and overall FFR than restrictive states (all P < 0.05).

175 diatric, unintentional, suicide, and overall FFR, but homicide and Black FFR appear unaffected.

176 g all 210 patients with site-reported paired FFR data.

177 as good as that of nonreclassified patients (FFR concordant with angiography), with no difference in

178 oronary CT angiography data in 106 patients, FFR was computed at a local workstation by using a compu

179 coronary intervention in 34 of 46 patients, FFR in the predominant donor vessel increased from 0.782

180 tients of FAME 1 and FAME 2 who had post-PCI FFR measurement were included.

181 We investigated the potential of post-PCI FFR measurements to predict clinical outcome in patients

182 Post-PCI FFR of 0.92 was found to have the highest diagnostic acc

183 come of lower and upper tertiles of post-PCI FFR significant difference was found favoring upper tert

184 A higher post-PCI FFR value is associated with a better vessel-related out

185 Post-PCI FFR was significantly lower in vessels with vessel-orien

186 vel of Evidence: A recommendation to perform FFR in angiographically intermediate stenoses in the abs

187 ategy based on angiography before performing FFR.

188 ts with stable coronary disease, physiology (FFR) is a more important determinant of the natural hist

189 Positive FFR values worsened after TAVI (0.71+/-0.11 versus 0.66+

190 f mammals, including humans, have a positive FFR, and cardiac contraction strength increases with hea

191 thers report either a biphasic or a positive FFR.

192 vations of a shift from negative to positive FFR when approaching the rat physiological frequency ran

193 value compared with CTA alone for predicting FFR of </=0.80, as well as decreasing the frequency of n

194 haring a common design, were pooled as PRIME-FFR (Insights From the POST-IT and R3F Integrated Multic

195 dynamics play a significant role in the rat FFR.

196 related with firearm-related fatality rates (FFR) during a 15-year period.

197 FFR value, the time to reach FFR and patient discomfort (on a subjective scale from 0

198 induce greater rates of ischemia and reduced FFR compared with non-lipid-rich plaques also independen

199 ave a positive force-frequency relationship (FFR).

200 arteries guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) (295 patients) or to undergo no revascularization o

201 ng; measurements of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and coronary flow reserve (CFR) and the index of mi

202 y relevant CAD with fractional flow reserve (FFR) as a reference standard in a multicenter setting.

203 with measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) by means of a pressure wire technique is the establ

204 Measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) constitutes the current gold standard to evaluate t

205 ischemic lesions by fractional flow reserve (FFR) has been established as the gold standard.

206 The use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in acute coronary syndromes is controversial.

207 Penetration of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in clinical practice varies extensively, and the ap

208 nt expansion and SB fractional flow reserve (FFR) in patients with coronary bifurcation lesion.

209 r stenosis (DS) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) in predicting natural history.

210 been tested against fractional flow reserve (FFR) in small trials, and the two measures have been fou

211 Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is an invasive procedure used during coronary angio

212 ischemic lesions by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is associated with excellent long-term prognosis in

213 Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is not firmly established as a guide to treatment i

214 Invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) is now the gold standard for intervention.

215 ronary stenoses and fractional flow reserve (FFR) is weak.

216 predictive value of fractional flow reserve (FFR) measured immediately after percutaneous coronary in

217 used for reference fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement.

218 ion might alter the fractional flow reserve (FFR) of an interrogated vessel, rendering the FFR unreli

219 nosis may influence fractional flow reserve (FFR) of concomitant coronary artery disease by causing h

220 is as determined by fractional flow reserve (FFR) remains unknown.

221 Measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide coronary revascularization lags despite ro

222 The fractional flow reserve (FFR) value of 0.75 has been validated against ischemic t

223 respect to iFR and fractional flow reserve (FFR) were calculated for all indexes.

224 Fractional flow reserve (FFR), an index of the hemodynamic severity of coronary s

225 ree ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR), from early experimental studies to validation stud

226 y been assessed for fractional flow reserve (FFR), instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), and whole-cyc

227 ation (FAME) study, fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) imp

228 nvasively calculate fractional flow reserve (FFR).

229 sive measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR).

230 when compared with fractional flow reserve (FFR).We hypothesized that in comparison with FFR, revasc

231 tomography-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR-CT) is a novel, noninvasive test for myocardial isch

232 ced vasodilatation (fractional flow reserve [FFR] </=0.80).

233 (FAME II - Fractional Flow Reserve [FFR] Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] Plu

234 The frequency-following response (FFR) is a measure of the brain's periodic sound encoding

235 STATEMENT: The frequency-following response (FFR) is an EEG signal that is used to explore how the au

236 s described by the force-frequency response (FFR), a change in developed force with pacing frequency.

237 ge is known as the force-frequency response (FFR).

238 Routine FFR assessment of coronary lesions safely changes manage

239 to which the information gained from routine FFR affects patient management strategy and clinical out

240 SB FFR was significantly higher after POT+SB dilation or SB

241 After POT, SB FFR was <0.75 in 12 patients (30%), which improved to >0

242 After POT, SB FFR was <0.75 in a third of patients, which improved to

243 Similarly, FFR values in coronary arteries with lesions presenting

244 ore vulnerable to such reclassification than FFR and iFR.

245 These data confirm that FFR</=0.80 is valid to guide clinical decision making.

246 The FFR procedure was performed in both groups, but in the l

247 Although the FFR is widely interpreted as originating from brainstem

248 nd to document the relationships between the FFR, the onset response, and cortical activity.

249 Understanding the differences in the FFR between humans and rats is fundamental to interpreti

250 he iFR group and in 61 of 1007 (6.1%) in the FFR group (difference in event rates, 0.7 percentage poi

251 icantly higher proportion of patients in the FFR group than in the iFR group reported chest discomfor

252 of a CTO results in a modest increase in the FFR of the predominant collateral donor vessel associate

253 in the angiography-guided group than in the FFR-guided group (mean 2.7 [SD 1.2] vs 1.9 [1.3], p<0.00

254 roup versus 28% (143 of 509 patients) in the FFR-guided group (relative risk 0.91, 95% CI 0.75-1.10;

255 This clinical outcome in the FFR-guided group was achieved with a lower number of ste

256 reduced-order algorithm, computation of the FFR from coronary CT angiography data can be performed l

257 As a measure of the FFR, we test the effects of changes in frequency and ext

258 In rat the FFR is controversial.

259 FR) of an interrogated vessel, rendering the FFR unreliable at predicting ischemia should the CTO ves

260 These data confirm that the FFR has a cortical contribution and suggest ways in whic

261 ion CMR were 84.7% and 90.8% relative to the FFR reference.

262 nown that brainstem nuclei contribute to the FFR, but recent findings of an additional cortical sourc

263 a right auditory cortex contribution to the FFR.

264 idated against ischemic testing, whereas the FFR value of 0.80 has been widely accepted to guide clin

265 meaningful diagnostic discordance, with the FFR from the pressure wire >0.80 and that from the micro

266 rify the interaction of TAVI effect with the FFR values.

267 her the favourable clinical outcome with the FFR-guided PCI in the FAME study persisted over a 5-year

268 Therefore, FFR should identify lesions that are unlikely to possess

269 We demonstrate a dissociation between this FFR-f0-sensitive response in the right and an area in le

270 oses were divided into 4 groups according to FFR and %DS values: positive concordance (FFR</=0.80; DS

271 Patients allocated to FFR-guided PCI had FFR measurements of all stenotic arte

272 ed to evaluate whether iFR is noninferior to FFR with respect to the rate of subsequent major adverse

273 firearm legislation rankings with respect to FFR.

274 Mean time to FFR was 100 +/- 27 s for continuous intravenous infusion

275 Two FFR measurements were performed during intracoronary bol

276 ive study in consecutive patients undergoing FFR for clinical indications using proprietary software

277 e, multicenter trial, 169 patients underwent FFR assessment with a pressure wire alone and with a pre

278 patient-specific factors, clinicians can use FFR-CT to judge when the cost and risk of an invasive an

279 igh contrast volume (n=341 versus 422) using FFR</=0.80 as a reference standard.

280 Clinicians using FFR-CT must be able to interpret individual FFR-CT resul

281 aluate diagnostic performance of FFRCT using FFR as the reference standard.

282 Caution is warranted in using FFR values derived from patients with SIHD for clinical

283 Diagnostic accuracy versus FFR </=0.80 was calculated using binary cutoff values of

284 Change in predominant donor vessel FFR correlated with angiographic (%) diameter stenosis s

285 We tested the hypothesis that donor vessel FFR would significantly change after percutaneous corona

286 However, revascularization when FFR is 0.76 to 0.80, within the so-called gray zone, is

287 +/-0.12 versus 0.82+/-0.16; P=0.02), whereas FFR values in arteries with mild lesions (percent diamet

288 We sought to investigate whether FFR values might change after valve replacement.

289 While FFR identifies hemodynamically significant lesions likel

290 From 1983 patients, in whom FFR was prospectively used to guide treatment, 533 susta

291 the microcatheter FFR and the pressure wire FFR, as assessed by Bland-Altman analysis.

292 lly and with respect to their agreement with FFR.

293 ted CAD listed for coronary angiography with FFR were prospectively enrolled from 5 European centers.

294 dred forty-seven stenoses were assessed with FFR, iFR, and whole-cycle Pd/Pa.

295 tive coronary angiography when compared with FFR and evaluate the influence of risk factors (RF) on t

296 Diagnostic accuracy compared with FFR was 76% to 77% for all indexes including iFR.

297 Compared with FFR, a large scatter was observed for both DSVE and DSQC

298 ronary angiography (DSQCA) was compared with FFR.

299 FFR).We hypothesized that in comparison with FFR, revascularization decisions based on either binary

300 the study population were misclassified with FFR, iFR, and whole-cycle Pd/Pa, respectively.