Pressure wire versus microcatheter for FFR measurement: a head-to-head comparison.
Details
Serval ID
serval:BIB_5939DEEEB3FA
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Pressure wire versus microcatheter for FFR measurement: a head-to-head comparison.
Journal
EuroIntervention
ISSN
1969-6213 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
1774-024X
Publication state
Published
Issued date
02/02/2018
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
13
Number
15
Pages
e1850-e1856
Language
english
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article
Publication Status: epublish
Publication Status: epublish
Abstract
Recently developed microcatheters can be used instead of a pressure wire for fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement. We sought to assess the haemodynamic and clinical impact of using a larger profile device to measure FFR.
Our prospective registry included 77 consecutive patients who underwent invasive FFR measurement of intermediate coronary stenoses between June 2015 and July 2016. FFR values were obtained first using a pressure wire only (FFRw), second using a Navvus microcatheter (FFRMC), and finally using the wire with the microcatheter still in the stenosis (FFRw-MC) during intravenous adenosine infusion. Eighty-eight stenoses were suitable for a thorough head-to-head comparison. Mean FFRw (0.83±0.08) was significantly higher than mean FFRMC (0.80±0.10) and FFRw-MC (0.80±0.10). Mean FFRMC and FFRw-MC did not differ significantly. Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias of -0.03±0.05 for lower FFRMC values compared to FFRw values. Using a threshold of 0.80 for FFR, the indication for revascularisation would have differed when based on FFRMC versus FFRw in 20/88 (23%) of the lesions and 18/77 (23%) of the patients.
FFR measured using a microcatheter overestimates stenosis severity, leading to erroneous indication for revascularisation in a sizeable proportion of cases.
Our prospective registry included 77 consecutive patients who underwent invasive FFR measurement of intermediate coronary stenoses between June 2015 and July 2016. FFR values were obtained first using a pressure wire only (FFRw), second using a Navvus microcatheter (FFRMC), and finally using the wire with the microcatheter still in the stenosis (FFRw-MC) during intravenous adenosine infusion. Eighty-eight stenoses were suitable for a thorough head-to-head comparison. Mean FFRw (0.83±0.08) was significantly higher than mean FFRMC (0.80±0.10) and FFRw-MC (0.80±0.10). Mean FFRMC and FFRw-MC did not differ significantly. Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias of -0.03±0.05 for lower FFRMC values compared to FFRw values. Using a threshold of 0.80 for FFR, the indication for revascularisation would have differed when based on FFRMC versus FFRw in 20/88 (23%) of the lesions and 18/77 (23%) of the patients.
FFR measured using a microcatheter overestimates stenosis severity, leading to erroneous indication for revascularisation in a sizeable proportion of cases.
Pubmed
Web of science
Create date
21/11/2017 11:34
Last modification date
20/08/2019 14:12