Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2017
[FFR-Guided Revascularisation - Pros and Cons].
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Reuter Hannes, Baldus Stephan
Аннотация
An invasive measurement of the fractional flow reserve (FFR) allows the valuation of the individual risk for ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease. Therefore, FFR has become a valuable tool to guide coronary revascularisations. The cut-off value ≤ 0.80 has been validated in many different subsets of patients. However, FFR values describe a risk continuum with an inverse correlation between FFR value and the risk of events. So FFR should always be interpreted regarding the patient's clinical context, especially in patients with a high risk for rapid disease progression. As such, patients with diabetes mellitus and deferred revascularisation based on FFR > 0.80 had worse clinical outcomes compared to patients without diabetes. In addition, FFR shows methodical deficiencies concerning the quantification of serial stenoses as well as the valuation of residual ischemia of the culprit vessel early after myocardial infarction. This article highlights both the strengths and the pitfalls in the use and interpretation of FFR.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdenosineAngina, StableContraindicationsCoronary AngiographyCoronary Artery BypassCoronary DiseaseCoronary StenosisCost-Benefit AnalysisDiabetes ComplicationsFractional Flow Reserve, MyocardialHumansMyocardial InfarctionMyocardial IschemiaMyocardial RevascularizationReference ValuesRisk AssessmentStentsUltrasonography, Interventional