[FFR-Guided Revascularisation - Pros and Cons]

Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2017 Oct;142(21):1595-1603. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-104466. Epub 2017 Oct 18.
[Article in German]

Abstract

An invasive measurement of the fractional flow reserve (FFR) allows the valuation of the individual risk for ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease. Therefore, FFR has become a valuable tool to guide coronary revascularisations. The cut-off value ≤ 0.80 has been validated in many different subsets of patients. However, FFR values describe a risk continuum with an inverse correlation between FFR value and the risk of events. So FFR should always be interpreted regarding the patient's clinical context, especially in patients with a high risk for rapid disease progression. As such, patients with diabetes mellitus and deferred revascularisation based on FFR > 0.80 had worse clinical outcomes compared to patients without diabetes. In addition, FFR shows methodical deficiencies concerning the quantification of serial stenoses as well as the valuation of residual ischemia of the culprit vessel early after myocardial infarction. This article highlights both the strengths and the pitfalls in the use and interpretation of FFR.

MeSH terms

  • Adenosine / adverse effects
  • Angina, Stable / therapy
  • Contraindications
  • Coronary Angiography
  • Coronary Artery Bypass
  • Coronary Disease / complications*
  • Coronary Disease / therapy
  • Coronary Stenosis / diagnostic imaging
  • Coronary Stenosis / therapy
  • Cost-Benefit Analysis
  • Diabetes Complications / physiopathology*
  • Fractional Flow Reserve, Myocardial / physiology*
  • Humans
  • Myocardial Infarction / therapy
  • Myocardial Ischemia / complications
  • Myocardial Ischemia / therapy*
  • Myocardial Revascularization / methods*
  • Myocardial Revascularization / standards
  • Reference Values
  • Risk Assessment
  • Stents
  • Ultrasonography, Interventional

Substances

  • Adenosine