Comparison of diagnostic performance between quantitative flow ratio, non-hyperemic pressure indices and fractional flow reserve | Zendy

Ojas Hrakesh Mehta | Zendy; Michael Hay | Zendy; Ren Yik Lim | Zendy; Abdul Rahman Ihdayhid | Zendy; Michael Michail | Zendy; Jun Michael Zhang | Zendy; James D. Cameron | Zendy; Dennis Wong | Zendy

Open Access

Comparison of diagnostic performance between quantitative flow ratio, non-hyperemic pressure indices and fractional flow reserve

Author(s) -

Ojas Hrakesh Mehta,

Michael Hay,

Ren Yik Lim,

Abdul Rahman Ihdayhid,

Michael Michail,

Jun Michael Zhang,

James D. Cameron,

Dennis Wong

Publication year - 2020

Publication title -

cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy

Language(s) - English

Resource type - Journals

SCImago Journal Rank - 0.83

H-Index - 22

eISSN - 2223-3660

pISSN - 2223-3652

DOI - 10.21037/cdt-20-179

Subject(s) - fractional flow reserve , medicine , cardiology , receiver operating characteristic , diastole , predictive value , diagnostic accuracy , coronary angiography , nuclear medicine , blood pressure , myocardial infarction

Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is an estimate of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and is derived from 3-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography. The DILEMMA score is an angiographic technique developed to predict FFR. Unlike other diastolic indices such as instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) and dPR 25-75 , neither QFR nor DILEMMA score require pressure wires. This study sought to compare the diagnostic performance of QFR, diastolic indices and DILEMMA score to predict FFR.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.

Having issues? You can contact us here

Accelerating Research