Fractional flow reserve compared with intravascular ultrasound guidance for optimizing stent deployment CIRCULATION Fearon, W. F., Luna, J., Samady, H., Powers, E. R., Feldman, T., Dib, N., Tuzcu, E. M., Cleman, M. W., Chou, T. M., Cohen, D. J., Ragosta, M., Takagi, A., Jeremias, A., Fitzgerald, P. J., Yeung, A. C., Kern, M. J., Yock, P. G. 2001; 104 (16): 1917-1922


Determination of fractional flow reserve (FFR) has been proposed as a means to assess stent deployment. In this prospective, multicenter trial, we evaluate the use of FFR to optimize stenting by comparing it with standard intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) criteria.Eighty-four stable patients with isolated coronary lesions underwent coronary stent deployment starting at 10 atm and increased serially by 2 atm until the FFR was >/=0.94 or 16 atm was achieved. IVUS was then performed. FFR was measured with a coronary pressure wire with intracoronary adenosine to induce hyperemia. The diagnostic characteristics of an FFR <0.94 to predict suboptimal stent expansion by IVUS, defined in both absolute and relative terms, were calculated. Over a range of IVUS criteria, the highest sensitivity, specificity, and predictive accuracy of FFR were 80%, 30%, and 42%, respectively. Receiver operator characteristic analysis defined an optimal FFR cut point at >/=0.96; at this threshold, the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive accuracy of FFR were 75%, 58%, and 62%, respectively (P=0.03 for comparison of predictive accuracy, P=0.01 for concordance between FFR and IVUS). The negative predictive value was 88%. Significantly better diagnostic performance was achieved in a subgroup that received higher doses (>30 microgram) of intracoronary adenosine during pressure measurements, suggesting that FFR might be overestimated in the other group.A fractional flow reserve <0.96, measured after stent deployment, predicts a suboptimal result based on validated intravascular ultrasound criteria; however, an FFR >/=0.96 does not reliably predict an optimal stent result. Higher doses of intracoronary adenosine than previously used to measure FFR improve these results.

View details for PubMedID 11602494