Escaned J. ADVISE II: A Prospective, Registry Evaluation of iFR vs. FFR. TCT 2013. Lecture conducted from San Francisco, CA.
Sen S, et al. Development and validation of a new adenosine-independent index of stenosis severity from coronary wave-intensity analysis: results of the ADVISE (ADenosine Vasodilator Independent Stenosis Evaluation) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Apr 10;59(15):1392-402.
Using the iFR cut points of 0.85 and 0.94 matches best with an FFR ischemic cut-point of 0.80 with a specificity of 90.7% and sensitivity of 96.2%. (iFR Operator’s Manual 505-0101.23)
The ADVISE II study illustrated a 5.8%, i.e. (17+23)/690, classification discordance between the iFR Hybrid Approach and FFR. Among 477 lesions that would be assessed without hyperemia by the iFR Hybrid Approach, 40 (17+23) were due to classification discordance.
An iFR cut-point of 0.89 matches best with an FFR ischemic cut-point of 0.80 with a specificity of 87.8% and sensitivity of 73.0%. (iFR Operator’s Manual 505-0101.23)
Tonino et al. Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Guiding Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. New England Journal of Medicine. 2009; 360, Number 3:213-224.
By clicking on the link, you will be leaving the official Royal Philips Healthcare ("Philips") website. Any links to third-party websites that may appear on this site are provided only for your convenience and in no way represent any affiliation or endorsement of the information provided on those linked websites. Philips makes no representations or warranties of any kind with regard to any third-party websites or the information contained therein.