Cargando…
Non-hyperaemic pressure ratios to guide percutaneous coronary intervention
The use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in guiding revascularisation improves patient outcomes and has been well-established in clinical guidelines. Despite this, the uptake of FFR has been limited, likely attributable to the perceived increase in procedural time and use of hyperaemic agents that c...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7534727/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33004619 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2020-001308 |
_version_ | 1783590359035543552 |
---|---|
author | Michail, Michael Thakur, Udit Mehta, Ojas Ramzy, John M Comella, Andrea Ihdayhid, Abdul Rahman Cameron, James D Nicholls, Stephen J Hoole, Stephen P Brown, Adam J |
author_facet | Michail, Michael Thakur, Udit Mehta, Ojas Ramzy, John M Comella, Andrea Ihdayhid, Abdul Rahman Cameron, James D Nicholls, Stephen J Hoole, Stephen P Brown, Adam J |
author_sort | Michail, Michael |
collection | PubMed |
description | The use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in guiding revascularisation improves patient outcomes and has been well-established in clinical guidelines. Despite this, the uptake of FFR has been limited, likely attributable to the perceived increase in procedural time and use of hyperaemic agents that can cause patient discomfort. This has led to the development of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), an alternative non-hyperaemic pressure ratio (NHPR). Since its inception, the use of iFR has been supported by an increasing body of evidence and is now guideline recommended. More recently, other commercially available NHPRs including diastolic hyperaemia-free ratio and resting full-cycle ratio have emerged. Studies have demonstrated that these indices, in addition to mean distal coronary artery pressure to mean aortic pressure ratio, are mathematically analogous (with specific nuances) to iFR. Additionally, there is increasing data demonstrating the equivalent diagnostic performance of alternative NHPRs in comparison with iFR and FFR. These NHPRs are now integral within most current pressure wire systems and are commonly available in the catheter laboratory. It is therefore key to understand the fundamental differences and evidence for NHPRs to guide appropriate clinical decision-making. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7534727 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-75347272020-10-07 Non-hyperaemic pressure ratios to guide percutaneous coronary intervention Michail, Michael Thakur, Udit Mehta, Ojas Ramzy, John M Comella, Andrea Ihdayhid, Abdul Rahman Cameron, James D Nicholls, Stephen J Hoole, Stephen P Brown, Adam J Open Heart Interventional Cardiology The use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in guiding revascularisation improves patient outcomes and has been well-established in clinical guidelines. Despite this, the uptake of FFR has been limited, likely attributable to the perceived increase in procedural time and use of hyperaemic agents that can cause patient discomfort. This has led to the development of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), an alternative non-hyperaemic pressure ratio (NHPR). Since its inception, the use of iFR has been supported by an increasing body of evidence and is now guideline recommended. More recently, other commercially available NHPRs including diastolic hyperaemia-free ratio and resting full-cycle ratio have emerged. Studies have demonstrated that these indices, in addition to mean distal coronary artery pressure to mean aortic pressure ratio, are mathematically analogous (with specific nuances) to iFR. Additionally, there is increasing data demonstrating the equivalent diagnostic performance of alternative NHPRs in comparison with iFR and FFR. These NHPRs are now integral within most current pressure wire systems and are commonly available in the catheter laboratory. It is therefore key to understand the fundamental differences and evidence for NHPRs to guide appropriate clinical decision-making. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-10-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7534727/ /pubmed/33004619 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2020-001308 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Interventional Cardiology Michail, Michael Thakur, Udit Mehta, Ojas Ramzy, John M Comella, Andrea Ihdayhid, Abdul Rahman Cameron, James D Nicholls, Stephen J Hoole, Stephen P Brown, Adam J Non-hyperaemic pressure ratios to guide percutaneous coronary intervention |
title | Non-hyperaemic pressure ratios to guide percutaneous coronary intervention |
title_full | Non-hyperaemic pressure ratios to guide percutaneous coronary intervention |
title_fullStr | Non-hyperaemic pressure ratios to guide percutaneous coronary intervention |
title_full_unstemmed | Non-hyperaemic pressure ratios to guide percutaneous coronary intervention |
title_short | Non-hyperaemic pressure ratios to guide percutaneous coronary intervention |
title_sort | non-hyperaemic pressure ratios to guide percutaneous coronary intervention |
topic | Interventional Cardiology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7534727/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33004619 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2020-001308 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT michailmichael nonhyperaemicpressureratiostoguidepercutaneouscoronaryintervention AT thakurudit nonhyperaemicpressureratiostoguidepercutaneouscoronaryintervention AT mehtaojas nonhyperaemicpressureratiostoguidepercutaneouscoronaryintervention AT ramzyjohnm nonhyperaemicpressureratiostoguidepercutaneouscoronaryintervention AT comellaandrea nonhyperaemicpressureratiostoguidepercutaneouscoronaryintervention AT ihdayhidabdulrahman nonhyperaemicpressureratiostoguidepercutaneouscoronaryintervention AT cameronjamesd nonhyperaemicpressureratiostoguidepercutaneouscoronaryintervention AT nichollsstephenj nonhyperaemicpressureratiostoguidepercutaneouscoronaryintervention AT hoolestephenp nonhyperaemicpressureratiostoguidepercutaneouscoronaryintervention AT brownadamj nonhyperaemicpressureratiostoguidepercutaneouscoronaryintervention |