(Circulation. 2000;102:2365.)
© 2000 American Heart Association, Inc.
Clinical Investigation and Reports |
Diastolic Fractional Flow Reserve to Assess the Functional Severity of Moderate Coronary Artery Stenoses
Comparison With Fractional Flow Reserve and Coronary Flow Velocity Reserve
From the Cardiovascular Center (M.A.) and Division of Cardiology (H.T., H.Y., N.D.), Third Department of Internal Medicine, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Ichihara Hospital, Ichihara, Chiba, Japan.
Correspondence to Masayuki Abe, MD, Cardiovascular Center, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Ichihara Hospital, 3426-3 Anesaki, Ichihara, Chiba, Japan 299-0111. E-mail cao02110{at}pop02.odn.ne.jp
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Background—Coronary blood flow occurs mainly during the diastolic phase of each cardiac cycle and is mainly dependent on diastolic driving pressure, especially in the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD). We hypothesized that calculation of the ratio of the diastolic driving pressure of a stenotic LAD to its normal value, namely diastolic FFR (d-FFR), might provide precise insight into the mechanism of FFR for assessment of the functional severity of the stenosis. We compared d-FFR with FFR, coronary flow reserve (CFR), and exercise myocardial thallium scintigraphy in an lesion of intermediate severity.
Methods and Results—The study population consisted of 46 consecutive patients with a moderate stenosis in the LAD in whom simultaneous measurements of aortic pressure, left ventricular pressure, and coronary pressure distal to the stenosis were obtained. Coronary flow velocity was successfully measured with a Doppler guidewire in 37 of the 46 patients. Values for FFR, d-FFR, and CFR in the noninvasive test–positive group were significantly lower than those in the negative group. With cutoff values of 0.75, 0.76, and 2.0 for FFR, d-FFR, and CFR, sensitivities were 83.3%, 95.8%, and 88.2% and specificities were 100%, 100%, and 95.0%, respectively.
Conclusions—The close similarity of the sensitivity and specificity of FFR and d-FFR, around almost identical cutoff values (0.75 versus 0.76), confirms the physiological validity of FFR as a clinical standard. In clinical practice, FFR remains the index of choice for assessment of the functional severity of moderate coronary artery stenoses.
Key Words: ischemia • coronary artery disease • hemodynamics
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Angiograms provide only a 2-dimensional coronary luminal silhouette and have many limitations,1 2 3 especially in intermediate lesions (ie, those with percent diameter stenosis of 40% to 70%). Physiological assessment of the severity of the coronary lesion is critical for clinical decision making. The recent miniaturization of pressure and velocity sensors4 5 6 has allowed the simultaneous measurement of intracoronary flow velocity and transstenotic pressure gradients. A number of parameters derived from direct pressure and flow measurements have been clinically evaluated, such as coronary flow velocity reserve (CFR),7 8 9 instantaneous hyperemic diastolic velocity-pressure slope index,10 11 12 13 and pressure-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR).14 15 It was reported that an FFR of <0.75 is associated with inducible myocardial ischemia, as documented with bicycle exercise testing, thallium scintigraphy, and dobutamine-stressed echocardiography, and that the specificity and sensitivity of FFR are 100% and 88%, respectively.13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 However, FFR is conventionally obtained through the calculation of the ratio of mean blood pressure distal to a coronary stenosis to the mean aortic pressure during maximal hyperemia. In the present study, we calculated diastolic coronary driving pressure (dp-cor) from the difference between the diastolic coronary artery pressure and the diastolic left ventricular pressure. The calculation of diastolic FFR (d-FFR) in the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) seems to be a theoretically correct and rational concept, because the greater part of coronary blood flow takes place during the diastolic phase of each cardiac cycle, particularly in the LAD. We hypothesized that the ratio of dp-cor for a stenotic coronary artery to its normal value might provide insight into the mechanism of FFR for the assessment of the functional severity of the stenosis, especially in a lesion of intermediate severity. We therefore compared FFR with d-FFR and CFR against the results of exercise myocardial thallium scintigraphy.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Subjects
The present study included 46 consecutive patients who were hospitalized with a complaint of chest pain, who fulfilled defined inclusion criteria, and in whom simultaneous measurements, of adequate quality for analysis, could be obtained of aortic pressure, left ventricular pressure, and coronary pressure distal to the stenosis. Patients were eligible for the present study if they had a single stenosis in the proximal or mid portion of the LAD, but enrollment was restricted to patients with an intermediate lesion (40% to 70%). Patients who had the following clinical conditions were excluded from the study: (1) left main trunk disease, (2) 2- or 3-vessel disease, (3) anemia, (4) prior myocardial infarction in the flow-distribution territory of the LAD, (5) diabetes mellitus, (6) left ventricular hypertrophy or significant valvular heart disease, or (7) prior CABG. We also excluded patients (8) for whom we could not obtain informed consent. In 37 of the 46 patients, a Doppler guidewire was used simultaneously. All cardiac medications except for aspirin were discontinued 24 hours before the study.
Noninvasive Tests
Symptom-limited bicycle exercise testing was performed at
an initial workload of 25 W and was increased by 25 W every 3 minutes.
A 12-lead ECG was continuously recorded. At peak exercise, 3 mCi
thallium chloride was administered intravenously. Exercise
was maintained for 1 additional minute. Within 10 minutes after the
termination of exercise, stress planar images were acquired in the
anterior, left lateral, and left anterior oblique views, followed by
the acquisition of cardiac SPECT images. After 3 to 4 hours,
redistribution planar and SPECT images were obtained. When chest pain
was accompanied by ST-segment depression of >-0.2 mV on bicycle
exercise testing or reversible ischemia was detected with SPECT
at baseline and after exercise, the noninvasive test was judged to be
positive.
Cardiovascular Catheterization
After the intravenous administration of 5000 IU
heparin, a 6F guiding catheter, without side holes, was advanced up to
the left coronary ostium through the right brachial artery.
Isosorbide dinitrate (5 mg) was administered through the inserted
catheter. Lesion severity was evaluated with an online analysis
system that operated on digital images (DLK-III; GE Medical Systems). A
4F pigtail catheter was placed in the left ventricle through the right
radial artery to measure left ventricular pressure.
A 2.6F intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) catheter (Discovery; Boston Scientific) was used to calculate the percent area stenosis of the lesion. Distal coronary flow velocity and pressure were obtained simultaneously with a 0.014-in Doppler guidewire (FloWire; Endosonics) and a 0.014-in pressure guidewire (WaveWire; Endosonics). Care was taken to position the 2 wire transducers at the same site.
Translesional Pressure Gradient Measurements
The pressure measurements with the WaveWire were
processed with the use of the WaveMap (Endosonics), and
mean aortic and mean distal coronary pressures were displayed
simultaneously on the analog display of the
WaveMap. The pressure signal was calibrated to the normal
atmosphere before insertion. When the sensor was in place close to the
tip of the guiding catheter and equal pressures were not observed at
that location, a normalization procedure was performed to superimpose
the 2 pressures at that point. All pressure measurements were completed
within 10 minutes, and after the final measurement, the
WaveWire was pulled back close to the tip of the guiding
catheter. If a pressure difference of >5 mm Hg was observed, the
coronary pressure distal to the stenosis was
recalculated, with this drift taken into account.
Aortic and Left Ventricular Pressure
Measurements
Aortic pressure (guiding catheter) and left
ventricular pressure (pigtail catheter) were obtained with
2 separate fluid-filled pressure transducers (1290C; Hewlett Packard)
zeroed at mid chest level. All measurements, including aortic pressure,
left ventricular pressure, poststenotic
coronary pressure, and coronary flow velocity, were
obtained simultaneously, both at rest and during maximal
vasodilation, and were induced by the infusion of 150 µg ·
kg-1 · min-1 ATP
IV (Figure 1
).
|
Translesional Coronary Flow Velocity
Measurements
The quadrature/Doppler signals were processed with the
FloMap (Endosonics). The Doppler transducer was
advanced distal to the stenosis by 
5 artery diameter lengths,
to avoid placement in any side branches. The flow velocity measurements
distal to the stenosis were obtained under baseline conditions
and during hyperemia. CFR was computed as the ratio of the
average peak flow velocity (cm/s) during hyperemia to baseline
average peak flow velocity.7 8 9
Simultaneous Assessment of Aortic Pressure,
Poststenotic Coronary Pressure, Left
Ventricular Pressure, and Coronary Flow
Velocity Measurements
All measurements were continuously acquired with a personal
computer with a 12-bit analog-to-digital converter at a sampling
frequency of 250 Hz (MP100 systems and Acqknowledge; BIOPACK
Systems, Inc) (Figure 2).
|
Data Analysis
As shown in Figure 2
, we used the results obtained here
to calculate the dp-cor, which is the coronary distal pressure
minus left ventricular pressure during
diastole. With the difference in aortic pressure and left
ventricular pressure during diastole, we
calculated the driving pressure of the theoretically normal
coronary artery (dp-aor). The diastolic
intervals for analysis were defined manually from the peak
pressure point of the dp-cor to the sudden drop point of the dp-cor due
to myocardial contraction.
Calculation of FFR and d-FFR
FFR was calculated as the ratio of mean coronary distal
pressure, as measured with the WaveWire, to mean
arterial pressure, as measured with the guiding catheter,
at maximal hyperemia. The d-FFR was defined as the ratio of
dp-cor for a stenotic coronary artery to its dp-aor
value (Figure 3); both intervals of the
dp-cor and dp-aor obtained at maximal hyperemia were integrated
(Figure 4), and d-FFR was derived by
dividing dp-cor by the dp-aor (Figure 4).
|
|
Statistical Analysis
Results were expressed as mean±SD. Statistical analyses
were performed with the SPSS software package. All indexes derived from
pressure and velocity measurements and other continuous variables
were compared between the noninvasive test–positive and –negative
groups with the 2-tailed Student’s unpaired t test. The
categorical variables were compared between the 2 groups by
2 test. To compare both sensitivities and
specificities of CFR, FFR, and d-FFR against the results of noninvasive
tests, the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were used. The
best cutoff values were identified as the values with the highest sum
of sensitivity and specificity. To compare the sensitivity and
specificity of FFR, d-FFR, and CFR, the differences in the area under 3
respective ROC curves were compared.23
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Feasibility of Measurements
As shown in Table 1
, FFR,
d-FFR, and CFR values were obtained in 46 of 46 (100%), 46 of 46
100%), and 37 of 37 (100%) patients, respectively.
|
Patient Characteristics
As shown in Table 1, of the total of 46 patients, 24 were
positive on the noninvasive test and 22 were negative. Of the 37
patients in whom flow velocity was also measured, 17 were positive and
20 were negative. For patient characteristics, age alone was
significantly higher in the noninvasive test–positive group than in
the negative group.
Percent Diameter Stenosis and Percent Area
Stenosis
As shown in Table 1, quantitative coronary
angiography (QCA) revealed no significant difference in percent
diameter stenosis between the noninvasive test–positive
(56.8%) and –negative (52.6%) groups. IVUS showed that percent area
stenosis was significantly higher in the noninvasive
test–positive group than in the negative group (60.0±15.7% versus
49.7±10.5%, P<0.05), which concurs with other
reports.24 The difference between QCA and IVUS may be
due to disease of the reference segment for measurement of percent
diameter stenosis that QCA fails to detect but IVUS does
detect.
FFR, d-FFR, and CFR
The values for FFR, d-FFR, and CFR for both noninvasive
test–positive and –negative groups are shown in Table 1. CFR,
FFR, and d-FFR were significantly lower in the noninvasive
test–positive group than in the negative group
(P<0.01).
Figure 5 shows a comparison of the
3 ROC curves for d-FFR, FFR, and CFR used to discriminate the
noninvasive test positive from the negative. d-FFR seemed to be both
more sensitive and more specific than FFR and CFR, but the difference
in the area under 3 respective ROC curves was not statistically
significant. The cutoff values for d-FFR, FFR, and CFR were taken as
0.76, 0.75, and 2.0, respectively. The sensitivities of d-FFR, FFR, and
CFR were 95.8%, 83.3%, and 88.2%, respectively, and the
specificities of d-FFR, FFR, and CFR were 100%, 100%, and 95.0%,
respectively (Table 2).
|
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
FFR has emerged as an important clinical decision-making tool and is widely used in the assessment of the functional severity of intermediate stenoses, as an alternative to noninvasive testing for ischemia, and as the end point for coronary intervention. It is derived from the relationship between flow and resistance across the myocardial bed and represents the fraction of maximal blood flow that can still be obtained despite the presence of an epicardial coronary lesion.20 FFR has an unequivocal value of 1.0 in every normal coronary artery and is independent of changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and myocardial contractility and microvascular disease.22 25 26 An FFR cutoff value of 0.75 is thought to reliably distinguish functionally significant coronary stenoses.26 27 28 Because FFR is derived from the mean pressures of both systolic and diastolic phases, however, it does not fully reflect the diastolic contribution of coronary flow. Because coronary blood flow, especially in the LAD, takes place during the diastolic interval of the cardiac cycle, detailed analysis of the dp-cor in the LAD might provide an accurate insight into the mechanism of FFR. In particular, during hyperemia in the presence of moderate coronary stenosis, the actual increase in diastolic flow might be comparatively small, leading to a fall in the ratio of diastolic to systolic velocity. In flow velocity measurements in the 37 study patients, the ratio of diastolic to systolic velocity at baseline and hyperemia was 2.03±0.92 and 1.67±0.86, respectively (P=0.1). In such cases, the systolic fraction of coronary flow can be relatively high, and therefore the systolic interval fraction is composed of a larger proportion of the ratio compared with the diastolic interval fraction, particularly in the case of the left circumflex coronary artery and even more so in the right coronary artery. In addition, this diastolic predominance is less marked during hyperemia and even less so when a coronary stenosis is present. Therefore, and even though the principle of d-FFR is sound, the systolic component of coronary blood flow often cannot be neglected, in particular in the left circumflex and right coronary arteries.
Pijls et al22 pointed out that the specificity and sensitivity of FFR for myocardial ischemia detected with noninvasive tests were 100% and 85% to 95%, respectively, and in the present study, the specificity of FFR was 100% and sensitivity was 83.3%, around the 0.75 cutoff. It is encouraging that the cutoff value for d-FFR was 0.76, whereas the cutoff point for conventional FFR has been claimed to be 0.75 in a number of previous studies. The simple fact that the cutoff points are so similar is a strong confirmation of the physiological soundness of the principles that underlies the concept of FFR. FFR is generally considered to be independent of changes in heart rate, aortic pressure, and myocardial contractility. In the present study, we used d-FFR to identify the influences in left ventricular diastolic pressure and dp-cor and to predict the results of noninvasive testing. The diagnostic value of d-FFR is similar to that of classic FFR, because of the similar cutoff values and diagnostic accuracy; that is, FFR is also independent of those influences.
Study Limitations
We divided all patients into binary positive or negative groups
according to the results of noninvasive testing. However, it is well
known that 201Tl SPECT with symptom-limited
exercise bicycle testing has limited accuracy, with a sensitivity of no
greater than 85% and specificity of 
90%. Therefore, discrepancies
between the invasive parameters and the thallium testing
could also be due to false-positive or false-negative thallium tests.
The only way to know whether an abnormal perfusion scintigram is truly
abnormal is to repeat the test after
revascularization. In this case, the positive case
that becomes negative can be considered truly positive, and the
negative test that was negative before
revascularization can be considered truly negative.
Because noninvasive tests after revascularization
were not available for all patients, we were unable to resolve this
question in the present study.
Another limitation of the present study is that the acquisition of d-FFR is complex and therefore more vulnerable to measurement errors, although in here, all measurements were performed at least twice without difficulties. This can be important because the applicability of a parameter is also determined by the ease with which it can be obtained.
Signal acquisition with the Doppler FloWire can sometimes be unstable, especially because the elevation of basal flow velocity during hyperemia may cause an abnormal CFR value.
In some patients, effort-induced vasospasm may occur during exercise testing. The influence of effort-induced vasospasm cannot be excluded during noninvasive testing, because all cardiac medications except aspirin were stopped for 24 hours before the tests. In addition, the administration of nitroglycerin during the measurement of flow velocity and pressure could eliminate the vasospastic mechanism. These 2 sets of diverse effects may modify the interpretation of our results.
We compared FFR and d-FFR with the results of noninvasive tests, but the latter obviously reflect the influence of epicardial coronary stenosis as well as of microvascular disease, which was difficult to exclude entirely from our results. Reference vessel CFR would confirm microvascular disease but that was not determined in the present study. One final limitation is that we investigated FFR and d-FFR only in the LAD.
Conclusion
We evaluated the functional impact of moderate coronary
stenosis on myocardial perfusion by simultaneously
measuring aortic pressure, distal coronary pressure, left
ventricular pressure, and coronary flow velocity,
and we compared the results of noninvasive testing with FFR, d-FFR, and
CFR. The close similarity of the sensitivity and specificity of both
FFR and d-FFR, around almost identical cutoff values, confirms the
physiological soundness of the principles that
underlie the concept of FFR. We believe that in clinical practice, FFR
remains the index of choice for assessment of the functional severity
of moderate coronary artery stenoses.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We are deeply indebted to Morton J. Kern, MD, Li Weihua, MD, and Takashi Akasaka, MD, for their constructive comments; Eiji Yano, MD, for his ROC curve assessment with SPBS software package delivered from the Center of Evidence-Based Medicine at Teikyo University School of Medicine; and Mark Green for his assistance in preparation of the manuscript.
Received May 4, 2000; revision received June 16, 2000; accepted June 26, 2000.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
-
Marcus M, Skorton DJ, Johnson MR, et
al. Visual estimates of present diameter
coronary stenosis: "a battered gold standard."
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;11:882–885.
-
Topol EJ, Nissen SE. Our pre-occupation with
coronary luminography: the dissociation between clinical and
angiographic findings in ischemic heart disease.
Circulation. 1995;92:2333–2342.
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
White CW, Wright CB, Doty DB, et al. Does visual
interpretation of the coronary arteriogram predict the
physiologic importance of a coronary stenosis?
N Engl J Med. 1994;310:819–824.[Abstract]
-
Ofili E, Kern MJ, Tatineni S, et al. Detection of
coronary collateral flow by a Doppler-tipped guide wire
during coronary angioplasty. Am Heart J. 1991;222:221–225.
-
Doucette JW, Corl PD, Payne HM, et al. Validation of a
Doppler guidewire for intravascular measurement of coronary
artery flow velocity. Circulation. 1992;85:1899–1911.
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, Paulus WJ, et al.
Trans-stenotic coronary pressure gradient measurement
in humans: in vitro and in vivo evaluation of a new pressure monitoring
angioplasty guidewire. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;22:119–126.[Abstract]
-
Gould KL, Lipscomb K, Hamilton GW.
Physiological basis for assessing critical
coronary stenosis: instantaneous flow response and
regional distribution during coronary hyperemia as
measures of coronary flow reserve. Am J
Cardiol. 1974;33:87–94.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
-
Hoffman JIM. Maximal coronary flow and the
concept of coronary vascular reserve. Circulation. 1984;70:153–159.
[Free Full Text]
-
Wilson RF, Laughlin DE, Ackell PH, et al.
Transluminal, sub-selective measurement of coronary artery
blood flow velocity and vasodilator reserve in man.
Circulation. 1985;72:82–92.
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Mancini GBJ, McGillen MJ, DeBoe SF, et al. The
diastolic hyperemic flow versus pressure relation:
a new index of coronary stenosis severity and flow
reserve. Circulation. 1989;80:941–950.
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Mancini GBJ, Cleary RM, DeBoe SF, et al. Instantaneous
hyperemic flow versus pressure slope index: microsphere
validation of an alternative to measures of coronary flow
reserve. Circulation. 1991;84:862–870.
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Cleary RM, Aron D, Moore NB, et al.
Tachycardia, contractility and volume
loading alter conventional indices of coronary flow reserve,
but not the instantaneous hyperemic flow versus pressure slope
index. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;20:1261–1269.[Abstract]
-
Di Mario C, Krams R, Gil R, et al. Slope of the
instantaneous hyperemic diastolic coronary
flow velocity-pressure relation: a new index for assessment of the
physiological significance of coronary
stenosis in humans. Circulation. 1994;90:1215–1224.
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Pijls NHJ, van Son JAM, Kirkeeide RL, et al.
Experimental basis of determining maximum coronary, myocardial,
and collateral blood flow by pressure measurements for assessing
functional stenosis severity before and after PTCA.
Circulation. 1993;87:1354–1367.
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
De Bruyne B, Baudhuin T, Melin JA, et al.
Coronary flow reserve calculated from pressure measurements in
humans: validation with positron emission tomography.
Circulation. 1994;89:1013–1022.
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Seagal J, Kern MJ, Scott NA, et al. Alterations of
phasic coronary artery flow velocity in humans during
percutaneous coronary angioplasty. J
Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;20:276–86.[Abstract]
-
Donohue TJ, Kern MJ, Aguirre FV, et al. Assessing the
hemodynamic significance of coronary artery
stenosis: analysis of translesional pressure-flow
relations in patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;22:449–458.[Abstract]
-
Serruys PW, Mario CD, Maneveau N, et al.
Intracoronary pressure and flow velocity with sensor-tip
guidewires: a new methodological approach for assessment of
coronary hemodynamics before and after
coronary interventions. Am J Cardiol. 1993;71:41D–53D.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
-
Mario CD, Gil R, Sunamura M, et al. New concepts for
interpretation of intracoronary velocity and pressure tracings.
Br Heart J. 1995;74:485–492.
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Kern MJ, de Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ. From research to
clinical practice: current role of intracoronary
physiologically-based decision-making in the
cardiac catheterization laboratory. J Am
Coll Cardiol. 1997;30:613–620.[Abstract]
-
Heller LI, Cate C, Popma J, et al.
Intracoronary Doppler assessment of moderate
coronary artery disease: comparison with
201Tl imaging and coronary angiography.
Circulation. 1997;96:484–490.
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Pijls NHJ, de Bruyne B, Peels K, et al. Measurement of
fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of
coronary artery stenosis. N Engl J
Med. 1996;334:1703–1708.
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Hanley JA, Mcneil BJ. A method of comparing the areas
under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same
cases. Radiology. 1983;148:839–843.
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Abizaid AS, Mintz GS, Abizaid A, et al. One-year
follow-up after intravascular ultrasound assessment of moderate left
main coronary artery disease in patients with ambiguous
angiograms. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34:707–715.
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
de Bruyne B, Bartunek J, Sys SU, et al.
Simultaneous coronary pressure and flow velocity
measurements in humans: feasibility, reproducibility, and
hemodynamic dependence of coronary flow
velocity reserve, hyperemic flow versus pressure slope index,
and fractional flow reserve. Circulation. 1996;94:1842–1849.
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Pijls NHJ, Van Gelder B, Van der Voort P, et al.
Fractional flow reserve: a useful index to evaluate the influence of an
epicardial coronary stenosis on myocardial blood flow.
Circulation. 1995;92:31183–3193.
-
de Bruyne B, Bartunek J, Sys SU, et al. Relation
between myocardial fractional flow reserve calculated from
coronary pressure measurements and exercise-induced myocardial
ischemia. Circulation. 1995;92:39–46.
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Labovitz AJ, Anthonis D, Cravens TL, et al. Validation
of volumetric flow measurements by means of a Doppler-tipped
coronary angioplasty guide wire. Am Heart J. 1993;126:1456–1461.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  M. J. Kern, A. Lerman, J.-W. Bech, B. De Bruyne, E. Eeckhout, W. F. Fearon, S. T. Higano, M. J. Lim, M. Meuwissen, J. J. Piek, et al. Physiological Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Committee on Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Catheterization, Council on Clinical Cardiology Circulation, September 19, 2006; 114(12): 1321 - 1341. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Legalery, F. Schiele, M.-F. Seronde, N. Meneveau, H. Wei, K. Didier, M.-C. Blonde, F. Caulfield, and J.-P. Bassand One-year outcome of patients submitted to routine fractional flow reserve assessment to determine the need for angioplasty Eur. Heart J., December 2, 2005; 26(24): 2623 - 2629. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
O. Pereztol-Valdes, J. Candell-Riera, C. Santana-Boado, J. Angel, S. Aguade-Bruix, J. Castell-Conesa, E. V. Garcia, and J. Soler-Soler Correspondence between left ventricular 17 myocardial segments and coronary arteries Eur. Heart J., December 2, 2005; 26(24): 2637 - 2643. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Escaned, J. Cortes, A. Flores, J. Goicolea, F. Alfonso, R. Hernandez, A. Fernandez-Ortiz, M. Sabate, C. Banuelos, and C. Macaya Importance of diastolic fractional flow reserve and dobutamine challenge in physiologic assessment of myocardial bridging J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., July 16, 2003; 42(2): 226 - 233. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. H. J. Pijls Is it time to measure fractional flow reserve in all patients? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., April 2, 2003; 41(7): 1122 - 1124. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. S. Werner, M. Ferrari, B. M. Richartz, O. Gastmann, and H. R. Figulla Microvascular Dysfunction in Chronic Total Coronary Occlusions Circulation, September 4, 2001; 104(10): 1129 - 1134. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. De Bruyne, N. H.J. Pijls, J. Bartunek, K. Kulecki, J.-W. Bech, H. De Winter, P. Van Crombrugge, G. R. Heyndrickx, and W. Wijns Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Prior Myocardial Infarction Circulation, July 10, 2001; 104(2): 157 - 162. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. J. W. Bech, B. De Bruyne, N. H.J. Pijls, E. D. de Muinck, J. C.A. Hoorntje, J. Escaned, P. R. Stella, E. Boersma, J. Bartunek, J. J. Koolen, et al. Fractional Flow Reserve to Determine the Appropriateness of Angioplasty in Moderate Coronary Stenosis : A Randomized Trial Circulation, June 19, 2001; 103(24): 2928 - 2934. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||