Korean Circ J.  2021 Feb;51(2):140-142. 10.4070/kcj.2020.0511.

Would a Noninvasive Coronary Physiology Become a Standard and Popular Approach?

• Cho YK
• Nam CW

• KMID: 2512451
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4070/kcj.2020.0511

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 QFR-FFR or iFR hybrid approach. In the gray zone of the QFR (0.75–0.85), adoption of an invasive physiologic measurement could improve the diagnostic accuracy.FFR = fractional flow reserve; iFR = instantaneous wave-free ratio; PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention; QFR = quantitative flow ratio.

Reference

1. Cho YK, Nam CW, Han JK, et al. Usefulness of combined intravascular ultrasound parameters to predict functional significance of coronary artery stenosis and determinants of mismatch. EuroIntervention. 2015; 11:163–170. PMID: 26093837.

2. Nam CW, Yoon HJ, Cho YK, et al. Outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention in intermediate coronary artery disease: fractional flow reserve-guided versus intravascular ultrasound-guided. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010; 3:812–817. PMID: 20723852.

3. Cho YK, Nam CW. Percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease: a focus on physiology. Korean J Intern Med. 2018; 33:851–859. PMID: 29551050.

4. Lee JM, Choi KH, Doh JH, et al. Long-term patient prognostication by coronary flow reserve and index of microcirculatory resistance: international registry of comprehensive physiologic assessment. Korean Circ J. 2020; 50:890–903. PMID: 32725991.

5. Kim JH, Choi W, Kim KC, et al. The current status of intervention for intermediate coronary stenosis in the Korean Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (K-PCI) Registry. Korean Circ J. 2019; 49:1022–1032. PMID: 31190480.

6. Götberg M, Christiansen EH, Gudmundsdottir IJ, et al. Instantaneous wave-free ratio versus fractional flow reserve to guide PCI. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376:1813–1823. PMID: 28317438.

7. Tu S, Westra J, Yang J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of fast computational approaches to derive fractional flow reserve from diagnostic coronary angiography: the International Multicenter FAVOR Pilot Study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9:2024–2035. PMID: 27712739.

8. Xu B, Tu S, Qiao S, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of angiography-based quantitative flow ratio measurements for online assessment of coronary stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 70:3077–3087. PMID: 29101020.

9. Hwang D, Jeon KH, Lee JM, et al. Diagnostic performance of resting and hyperemic invasive physiological indices to define myocardial ischemia: validation with ¹³N-ammonia positron emission tomography. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10:751–760. PMID: 28365268.

10. Dai N, Hwang D, Lee JM, et al. Association of quantitative flow ratio with lesion severity and its ability to discriminate myocardial ischemia. Korean Circ J. 2021; 51:126–139. PMID: 33525067.