Six-year status quo with fractional flow reserve
نویسندگان
چکیده
منابع مشابه
Fractional Flow Reserve
Traditionally, coronary artery disease was assessed using coronary angiographic guidance. Significant lesions were determined by the coronary angiographer. However, interobserver variability showed a significant limitation of interpretation of coronary angiography. Stent deployment and apposition were also evaluated based on angiographic appearance only. Risk factors for stent thrombosis and in...
متن کاملCurrent status of assessment of fractional flow reserve.
oronary angiography presently remains the main method for the diagnosis and instruction of epicardial coronary disease. However, precise characterization of the significance for any given stenosis is limited by the inability to identify intermediate coronary lesions responsible for ischemia. In clinical practice, in addition to the assessment of the anatomical details of vessel narrowing, a mor...
متن کاملEnd-diastolic fractional flow reserve: comparison with conventional full-cardiac cycle fractional flow reserve.
BACKGROUND Diastolic fractional flow reserve (dFFR) has been shown to be highly sensitive for detection of inducible myocardial ischemia. However, its reliance on measurement of left-ventricular pressure for zero-flow pressure correction, as well as manual extraction of the diastolic interval, has been its major limitation. Given previous reports of minimal zero-flow pressure at end-diastole, w...
متن کامل“Virtual” (Computed) Fractional Flow Reserve
Ma Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the “gold standard” for assessing the physiological significance of coronary artery disease during invasive coronary angiography. FFR-guided percutaneous coronary intervention improves patient outcomes and reduces stent insertion and cost; yet, due to several practical and operator related factors, it is used in <10% of percutaneous coronary intervention proc...
متن کاملFractional flow reserve-guided PCI.
n engl j med 372;1 nejm.org january 1, 2015 94 difference. The observed loss of FEV1 was neither a time-dependent nor a dose-dependent effect in the withdrawal group, as compared with the maintenance group. A difference of 38 ml between groups became apparent only after the final step of inhaled glucocorticoid withdrawal and did not change to a meaningful extent thereafter. Singanayagam et al. ...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases
سال: 2010
ISSN: 1875-2136
DOI: 10.1016/j.acvd.2009.08.007