English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Vigorous controversy continues in the coronary physiological community about how a basal index of stenosis severity can compete effectively with a hyperemic index1–3 and challenges conventional wisdom and our understanding of what is a true ischemic response that can be quantitated in the catheterization laboratory. Moreover, the controversy is fueled by the absence of an easily obtainable ischemic standard against which various physiological indices of hemodynamic lesion significance can be compared and has led to numerous studies using a noninvasive or surrogate physiological measurement, such as hyperemic stenosis resistance,4,5 or as in the current study, coronary flow reserve (CFR, hyperemic/basal flow velocity ratio) to demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses among the proposed pressure-only indices.Article see p 492In this issue of Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions , Petraco et al6 report their pressure and flow velocity data acquired with sensor angioplasty guide wires across 216 coronary stenoses in 186 patients in the catheterization laboratory. Using CFR as a standard, the basal instantaneous wave-free pressure ratio (iFRbasal) had stronger correlation than fractional flow reserve (FFR) to CFR (correlation coefficient, r =0.68 versus 0.50; P 0.75), where flow was higher for the hyperemic index (as it should be) when compared with the iFRbasal (42 versus 26 cm/s; P <0.001). …

Reconciling Poststenotic Pressure With Hyperemic Flow