ライフサイエンスコーパス: FFR

1 FFR computed tomography (CT) derived (FFR(CT)) has shown

2 FFR derived from routine coronary angiography (FFR(angio

3 FFR measurements were performed with a microcatheter +/-

4 FFR pullback and conventional FFR(CT) significantly unde

5 FFR SEARCH (Stent Evaluated at Rotterdam Cardiology Hosp

6 FFR was measured in vessels with coronary lesions of var

7 FFR(angio) has the promise to substantially increase phy

8 FFR(angio) measured from the coronary angiogram alone ha

9 FFR(angio) values correlated well with FFR measurements

10 FFR(CT) also outperformed PET on a per-vessel basis (AUC

11 FFR(CT) showed a diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and s

12 FFR(CT) values were retrospectively derived from the cor

13 FFR(CT) was available for 1030 lesions (mean FFR(CT) val

14 FFR(INV) profiles were developed by plotting FFR(INV) va

15 FFR(INV) recordings were obtained prospectively during m

16 FFR(INV) values from the terminal vessel may overestimat

17 FFR(INV)<=0.8 was considered positive for lesion-specifi

18 FFR-guided heart rate settings had no adverse effect on

19 ng them, 209 patients underwent CABG and 209 FFR-guided PCI.

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

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

22 hnique (FFR(CT-P)) was then assessed against FFR(true).

23 All FFR measurements were performed under maximum hyperemia

24 dels to determine the association between an FFR-guided revascularization strategy and all-cause mort

25 mean FFR was 0.81 and 43% of vessels had an FFR<=0.80.

26 to a cardiovascular MRI-based strategy or an FFR-based strategy.

27 ular MRI-based strategy is noninferior to an FFR-based strategy with respect to major adverse cardiac

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

29 on FFR <=0.85 as compared with those with an FFR >0.85.

30 f the myocardium or in the FFR group with an FFR of 0.8 or less.

31 in whom 3-vessel FFR(CT) could be analyzed, FFR(CT) holds clinical potential to provide anatomic and

32 rdial infarction, or stroke between CABG and FFR-guided PCI.

33 rotocol, 19 vessels had post hoc FFR(CT) and FFR(CT-P) calculation.

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

35 ment was feasible in 99% of the patients and FFR(CT) analysis in 88%.

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

37 R derived from routine coronary angiography (FFR(angio)) eliminates both of these requirements and di

38 ullback was performed to derive the apparent FFR contribution of each stenosis (FFR(pullback)).

39 were compared with FFR (ischemia defined as FFR <=0.80).

40 f PCI procedures according to evidence-based FFR thresholds.

41 Bland-Altman plot showed mean bias between FFR and CT-FFR as 0.059+/-0.110.

42 ysis, there was positive correlation between FFR and CT-FFR (Pearson correlation coefficient, R=0.64,

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

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

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

46 ovided coronary CTA images were evaluable by FFR(CT), whereas PET had a favorable performance in per-

47 hest per-patient and -vessel AUC followed by FFR(CT) (0.86 vs. 0.83; p = 0.157; and 0.90 vs. 0.79; p

48 ite operators blinded to FFR then calculated FFR(angio) using proprietary software.

49 ique (disengagement of the guiding catheter, FFR(INV) pullback) is required to avoid erroneous FFR(IN

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

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

52 rall and remained high when only considering FFR values between 0.75 to 0.85 (87%).

53 FFR pullback and conventional FFR(CT) significantly underestimate true stenosis contri

54 ve coronary CT angiography with conventional FFR(CT)-derived post hoc for each vessel and stenosis (F

55 CT FFR and triple-rule-out CT angiography demonstrated agre

56 CT FFR derived from triple-rule-out CT angiography was a be

57 CT FFR of 0.80 and less served as a better predictor for co

58 CT FFR was possible in 16 of 17 cases (94%) and showed path

59 AI-based CT FFR from triple-rule-out CT angiography data sets was re

60 The agreement between CT FFR (<= 0.80) and stenosis at triple-rule-out CT angiogr

61 ld be solved when adding information from CT FFR and 3D image fusion (six of eight, 75%).

62 Furthermore, the predictive value of CT FFR for coronary revascularization and major adverse car

63 y tree and heart contours, calculation of CT FFR values, and color coding of the coronary tree accord

64 Therefore, CT FFR may improve the specificity in identifying patients

65 coding of the coronary tree according to CT FFR.

66 ce or absence of significant disease with CT FFR (55%) than with coronary triple-rule-out CT angiogra

67 CT-FFR data were compared with FFR (ischemia defined as FFR

68 CT-FFR is safe and feasible in patients with severe aortic

69 was positive correlation between FFR and CT-FFR (Pearson correlation coefficient, R=0.64, P<0.0001).

70 man plot showed mean bias between FFR and CT-FFR as 0.059+/-0.110.

71 Mean FFR and CT-FFR were 0.83+/-0.10 and 0.77+/-0.14, respectively.

72 ls (88.2%) had interpretable CTA enabling CT-FFR computation.

73 ceiver-operating characteristic curve for CT-FFR was 0.83 (0.72-0.93, P<0.0001), which was higher tha

74 ation for future research into the use of CT-FFR for coronary evaluation pre-aortic valve replacement

75 the safety, feasibility, and validity of CT-FFR in patients with severe aortic stenosis.

76 suggests that the diagnostic accuracy of CT-FFR in this cohort potentially enables its use in clinic

77 tFlow, Inc) for independent evaluation of CT-FFR.

78 mography-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) is a clinically used modality for assessing coronar

79 lues from above to below the clinical cutoff FFR value of 0.80 in 1 out of 5 measurements.

80 puted tomography angiography (CTA) datasets (FFR(CT)) has emerged as a promising noninvasive test to

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

82 (angio) for predicting pressure wire-derived FFR using a cutoff value of 0.80.

83 accuracy compared with pressure wire-derived FFR.

84 FFR computed tomography (CT) derived (FFR(CT)) has shown to be accurate, but its clinical usef

85 (with GC engaged [FFR(eng)] and disengaged [FFR(dis)]) in 202 intermediate stenoses of 173 patients.

86 ignificantly changed after GC disengagement: FFR(eng) 0.84+/-0.08 versus FFR(dis) 0.80+/-0.09, P<0.00

87 ates both of these requirements and displays FFR values of the entire coronary tree.

88 who exhibited strongest organization during FFR achieved highest levels of performance.

89 ty); (2) whether the extent of DeltaFFR(eng)-FFR(dis) could be clinically significant and therefore a

90 cision-making; and (3) whether DeltaFFR(eng)-FFR(dis) related to the stenosis location, that is, prox

91 We assessed (1) whether DeltaFFR(eng)-FFR(dis) was significantly different from the intrinsic

92 with distal coronary segments (DeltaFFR(eng)-FFR(dis), proximal and middle 0.04+/-0.03 versus distal

93 ospectively measured twice (with GC engaged [FFR(eng)] and disengaged [FFR(dis)]) in 202 intermediate

94 Erroneous FFR(INV) values were observed in 10% of vessels because

95 NV) pullback) is required to avoid erroneous FFR(INV), which occur in 31% of vessels.

96 It is not known whether established FFR thresholds for PCI are adhered to in routine interve

97 patient, site-level, and procedural factors, FFR-guided revascularization was associated with a 43% l

98 FR(angio) Accuracy versus Standard FFR (FAST-FFR) study is a prospective, multicenter, international

99 ausing lesions was significantly greater for FFR(CT) (0.94 and 0.92) in comparison with coronary CTA

100 etimes spanning four orders of magnitude for FFR of spin-orbit excited molecular ions with merged bea

101 The device success rate for FFR(angio) was 99%.

102 was 75.4 (95% CI, 23.4 to 127.5) seconds for FFR-guided rate-adaptive pacing and 3.1 (95% CI, -44.1 t

103 nosis, analogous to diagnostic threshold for FFR.

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

105 rgoing the protocol, 19 vessels had post hoc FFR(CT) and FFR(CT-P) calculation.

106 impede hyperemic flow, and therefore impact FFR measurements and related clinical decision-making.

107 There were significant declines in FFR(INV) from the proximal to the terminal vessel in nor

108 The authors documented trends in FFR utilization and evaluated predictors using generaliz

109 ponse programming on the basis of individual FFR data and conventional age-guided rate-response progr

110 tions and measurement location may influence FFR(INV) interpretation.

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

112 th a post-percutaneous coronary intervention FFR <=0.85 as compared with those with an FFR >0.85.

113 th a post-percutaneous coronary intervention FFR <=0.85, mean post procedural FFR was 0.79+/-0.05.

114 hich post-percutaneous coronary intervention FFR was assessed in 1000 consecutive all-comer patients.

115 gh concordance between FFRangio and invasive FFR.

116 atients underwent standard-protocol invasive FFR and coronary CT angiography (CTA).

117 al stenoses in serial disease using invasive FFR pullback and the noninvasive equivalent, fractional

118 5)O]H(2)O PET, and routine 3-vessel invasive FFR measurements.

119 CT) correlated moderately well with invasive FFR ( R=0.71; P<0.001).

120 y of FFRCT techniques compared with invasive FFR.

121 Among 2693 patients with an ischemic FFR, 75.3% received PCI and 24.7% were treated only with

122 In the ischemic FFR cohort, PCI was associated with a significantly lowe

123 a 42% error) and conventional trans-lesional FFR(CT) (0.05+/-0.06; P<0.001, 37% error).

124 true FFR attributable to individual lesions (FFR(true)) was then measured following PCI of one of the

125 assessing the distal effect of all lesions, FFR(CT) correlated moderately well with invasive FFR ( R

126 Very long FFRs are largely restricted to remote regions of the Arc

127 od to quantify riverine connectivity and map FFRs, we provide a foundation for concerted global and n

128 Mean FFR and CT-FFR were 0.83+/-0.10 and 0.77+/-0.14, respect

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

130 FFR(CT) was available for 1030 lesions (mean FFR(CT) value 0.64+/-13).

131 The mean FFR was 0.81 and 43% of vessels had an FFR<=0.80.

132 d identifying the proper location to measure FFR(INV).

133 nces were compared using invasively measured FFR <=0.80 as the reference standard.

134 Measuring FFR(INV) 20 to 30 mm distal-to-the-lesion (rather than f

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

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

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

138 HFrEF on the basis of individual noninvasive FFR data acutely improves exercise capacity.

139 A novel noninvasive FFR(CT)-based PCI planner tool more accurately predicts

140 and test the accuracy of a novel noninvasive FFR(CT)-derived percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)

141 Among 6413 patients with a nonischemic FFR, 12.6% received PCI and 87.4% were treated with medi

142 The diagnostic accuracy of FFR(angio) was 92% overall and remained high when only c

143 primary goal of determining the accuracy of FFR(angio).

144 The predictive accuracy of FFR(pullback), FFR(CT), and the novel technique (FFR(CT-

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

146 The addition of FFR(CT) changed the treatment decision in 7% of the pati

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

148 on rapid flow analysis for the assessment of FFR.

149 However, limited data exist on the effect of FFR on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with stab

150 ess is known about the prognostic effects of FFR measured directly after percutaneous coronary interv

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

152 sent study sought to determine the impact of FFR(CT) on heart team's treatment decision-making and se

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

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

155 rve a hierarchy of grouping organizations of FFR, most notably many participants sequentially recalle

156 valuate contemporary, real-world patterns of FFR use and its effect on outcomes among unselected pati

157 as to evaluate the diagnostic performance of FFR(CT) and compare it with coronary CTA, single-photon

158 The rate of FFR use gradually increased from 14.8% to 18.5% among al

159 GC disengagement results in a shift of FFR values from above to below the clinical cutoff FFR v

160 nt, there was significant underestimation of FFR(true) using FFR(pullback) (mean discrepancy, 0.06+/-

161 termine the association between the usage of FFR and all-cause mortality in patients with stable angi

162 opean and American guidelines for the use of FFR during PCI and shows that intracoronary pressure wir

163 giographically intermediate stenoses, use of FFR has slowly risen, and was associated with significan

164 In this observational study, the use of FFR was associated with a lower risk of long-term mortal

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

166 Two separate cohorts were created based on FFR thresholds (<=0.80 as ischemic and >0.80 as nonische

167 cardiologist were unaware of the findings on FFR.

168 lications relating to premedication, CTA, or FFR protocol.

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

170 Overall, FFR significantly changed after GC disengagement: FFR(en

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

172 (s) with a post-PCI FFR <=0.80 with post-PCI FFR <=0.80 in 78 lesions (9.8%).

173 ents (11%) had >=1 lesion(s) with a post-PCI FFR <=0.80 with post-PCI FFR <=0.80 in 78 lesions (9.8%)

174 ents (56%) had >=1 lesion(s) with a post-PCI FFR <=0.90, and 73 patients (11%) had >=1 lesion(s) with

175 vessel diameter was associated with post-PCI FFR <=0.90.

176 no significant relationship between post-PCI FFR and the clinical end point at 30-day follow-up ( P=0

177 accumulated evidence suggests that post-PCI FFR be incorporated into routine practice in those patie

178 Post-PCI FFR did not correlate with clinical events at 30 days.

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

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

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

182 Routine measurement of post-PCI FFR using a monorail microcatheter is safe and feasible.

183 omized trials have established that post-PCI FFR value is independently predictive of long-term outco

184 aims of this study were to evaluate post-PCI FFR values, identify predictors for a low post-PCI FFR,

185 In 396 lesions (50%), post-PCI FFR was >0.90.

186 Overall post-PCI FFR was 0.90+/-0.07.

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

188 Measurement of post-PCI FFR was successful in 959 patients (96%), and a total of

189 rovides evidence for improvement in post-PCI FFR with subsequent interventions (functional optimizati

190 lues, identify predictors for a low post-PCI FFR, and to investigate whether a relationship between p

191 ical and prognostic implications of post-PCI FFR.

192 eristics were associated with a low post-PCI FFR.

193 e in those patients having undergone pre-PCI FFR as part of clinical decision making.

194 However, the value of performing FFR after intervention is uncertain.

195 FFR(INV) profiles were developed by plotting FFR(INV) values (y-axis) and site of measurement (x-axis

196 The rate of positive FFR(INV) was 41% when measured from the terminal vessel

197 hether a relationship between postprocedural FFR and outcome during 30-day follow-up exists.

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

199 In 100 vessels with a post procedural FFR <=0.85, and 20 vessels >0.85 high definition intrava

200 In patients with a post procedural FFR <=0.85, intravascular ultrasound revealed focal sign

201 wever, the rationale for low post procedural FFR values remains often elusive based on angiographic f

202 ntervention FFR <=0.85, mean post procedural FFR was 0.79+/-0.05.

203 The predictive accuracy of FFR(pullback), FFR(CT), and the novel technique (FFR(CT-P)) was then as

204 re participants perform 'final free recall' (FFR) of several random lists of words each of which was

205 With conventional angiography as reference, FFR(CT) assessment resulted in reclassification of 14% o

206 th Guiding Catheter Disengagement) registry, FFR was prospectively measured twice (with GC engaged [F

207 y known as the force-frequency relationship (FFR).

208 t from the intrinsic variability of repeated FFR measurements (test-retest repeatability); (2) whethe

209 performing invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR(INV)) by minimizing pressure distortions and identif

210 Invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR(INV)) is the standard technique for assessing myocar

211 Fractional flow reserve (FFR) after percutaneous coronary intervention is a predi

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

213 Fractional flow reserve (FFR) computation from coronary computed tomography angio

214 The value of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in determining the appropriateness of percutaneous

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

216 Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is a reliable tool for the functional assessment of

217 Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is an invasive measurement used to assess the poten

218 Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is commonly used to assess the functional significa

219 Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the current gold standard to determine hemodynam

220 Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the gold standard metric to assess physiological

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

222 linical outcomes of fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement in patients with stable ischemic heart

223 During fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement, the simple presence of the guiding cat

224 wire measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) provides decision-making guidance during percutaneo

225 Measuring fractional flow reserve (FFR) with a pressure wire remains underutilized because

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

227 isease treated with fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided PCI compared with CABG.

228 and measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR).

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

230 ling gives rise to Fano-Feshbach resonances (FFR) that have become key to understanding and controlli

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

232 The auditory frequency-following response (FFR) is a non-invasive index of the fidelity of sound en

233 Free-flowing rivers (FFRs) support diverse, complex and dynamic ecosystems gl

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

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

236 and specificity of the dichotomously scored FFR(angio) for predicting pressure wire-derived FFR usin

237 The FFR(angio) Accuracy versus Standard FFR (FAST-FFR) study is a prospective, multicenter, inte

238 rived post hoc for each vessel and stenosis (FFR(CT)).

239 apparent FFR contribution of each stenosis (FFR(pullback)).

240 In this phase II study, FFR-guided rate-response programming determined using a

241 In this study, FFR(CT) showed higher diagnostic performance than standa

242 pullback), FFR(CT), and the novel technique (FFR(CT-P)) was then assessed against FFR(true).

243 Even with optimal technique, FFR(INV) values are influenced by stenosis severity and

244 incidence of coronary revascularization than FFR and was noninferior to FFR with respect to major adv

245 al optimization) challenging the notion that FFR after angiographic optimization is fixed because of

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

247 The FFR(angio) Accuracy versus Standard FFR (FAST-FFR) study

248 The FFR-SEARCH (Fractional Flow Reserve-Stent Evaluated at R

249 Although the FFR is widely interpreted as originating from brainstem

250 roximal and middle coronary segments and the FFR value is close to the cutoff value.

251 eviously believed, and we illustrate how the FFR to complex sounds can enhance the wider field of aud

252 ent evidence suggesting that, in humans, the FFR arises from multiple cortical and subcortical source

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

254 I group and 16 of 430 patients (3.7%) in the FFR group (risk difference, -0.2 percentage points; 95%

255 One-year mortality was 2.8% in the FFR group and 5.9% in the angiography-only group (p < 0.

256 group and 213 of 464 patients (45.9%) in the FFR group met criteria to recommend revascularization (P

257 in the cardiovascular-MRI group than in the FFR group underwent index revascularization (162 [35.7%]

258 a in at least 6% of the myocardium or in the FFR group with an FFR of 0.8 or less.

259 he cardiovascular-MRI group and 43.8% in the FFR group, P = 0.21).

260 and cerebrovascular events was higher in the FFR-guided PCI versus the CABG group (44.5% versus 31.9%

261 only to study basic auditory processes, the FFR is an uncommonly multifaceted response yielding a we

262 The heart teams received the FFR(CT) and had to make a treatment decision and plannin

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

264 up of 4.7 years (range 0 to 11.2 years), the FFR group had lower adjusted risk estimates for all-caus

265 nt PCI for stable angina pectoris; of these, FFR guidance was used in 3,367.

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

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

268 0%-70%) was treated or deferred according to FFR.

269 nt projections, on-site operators blinded to FFR then calculated FFR(angio) using proprietary softwar

270 cularization than FFR and was noninferior to FFR with respect to major adverse cardiac events.

271 firearm legislation rankings with respect to FFR.

272 ctional flow reserve by computed tomography (FFR(CT)).

273 s coronary intervention (PCI) planning tool (FFR(CT-P)) in predicting the true significance of indivi

274 The true FFR attributable to individual lesions (FFR(true)) was t

275 anner tool more accurately predicts the true FFR contribution of each stenosis in serial coronary art

276 Forty-two patients (68 vessels) underwent FFR and CTA; 39 patients (92.3%) and 60 vessels (88.2%)

277 Using FFR(CT-P), stenosis underestimation was significantly re

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

279 e, a noninvasive physiology assessment using FFR(CT) changed heart team's treatment decision-making a

280 gnificant underestimation of FFR(true) using FFR(pullback) (mean discrepancy, 0.06+/-0.05; P<0.001, r

281 We aimed to examine whether using FFR data to tailor heart rate response in patients with

282 C disengagement: FFR(eng) 0.84+/-0.08 versus FFR(dis) 0.80+/-0.09, P<0.001.

283 Still, in patients in whom 3-vessel FFR(CT) could be analyzed, FFR(CT) holds clinical potent

284 nary artery disease undergoing single-vessel FFR assessment (excluding ST-segment elevation myocardia

285 y artery disease who underwent single-vessel FFR measurement in routine clinical practice, performing

286 s; 35.3% female) who underwent single-vessel FFR measurement.

287 d for 100 coronary artery segments for which FFR was known.

288 Hospital) is a prospective registry in which FFR measurements were performed after PCI in 1000 consec

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

290 determine the proportion of patients in whom FFR(CT) changed the treatment decision and planning.

291 Particularly, in 38 stenoses (19%) with FFR values in the 0.81 to 0.85 range, GC disengagement w

292 oronary computed tomography angiography with FFR(CT).

293 CT-FFR data were compared with FFR (ischemia defined as FFR <=0.80).

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

295 lar and cerebrovascular events compared with FFR-guided PCI, driven by a higher rate of repeat revasc

296 was 98% and 96% respectively, compared with FFR.

297 of 612 (83%) vessels could be evaluated with FFR(CT).

298 eat revascularization was more frequent with FFR-guided PCI (24.9% versus 8.2%; hazard ratio, 3.51 [9

299 FFR(angio) values correlated well with FFR measurements ( r=0.80, P<0.001) and the Bland-Altman

300 all patients undergoing PCI (with or without FFR guidance) for stable angina pectoris in Sweden betwe