500.05 Comparison Between Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) vs. Computational Fractional Flow Reserve Derived from Three-dimensional Intravascular Ultrasound (IVUSFR) and Quantitative...

Autores
Kajita, Alexandre; Bezerra, Cristiano Guedes; Ozaki, Yuichi; Dan, Kazuhiro; Melaku, Gebremedhin D.; Pinton, Fabio A.; Falcão, Breno A. A.; Mariani, José; Bulant, Carlos Alberto; Maso Talou, Gonzalo Daniel; Esteves, Antonio; Blanco, Pablo Javier; Waksman, Ron; Garcia Garcia, Hector M.; Lemons, Pedro Alves
Año de publicación
2019
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
BACKGROUND The determination of the ischemic status of a coronary artery by wireless physiologic assessment derived from angiography has been validated and approved in the US. However, the use ofplain angiography quantitative variables does not add much to thephysiology data since it has low correlation with fractional flowreserve (FFR) and predicts clinical outcomes poorly. Recently, a grayscale intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) derived physiology method(IVUSFR) was developed and showed a good correlation with invasiveFFR by combining the geometric advantages of IVUS with physiology.The aim of this study is to assess the coefficient of correlation (R) ofinvasive FFR compared to IVUSFR and quantitative flow ratio (QFR).METHODS Stable coronary artery disease (CAD) patients with intermediate lesions (i.e. 40?80% of diameter stenosis) were assessed by angiography and IVUS. QFR was derived from the angiography images, andIVUSFR was derived from quantitative IVUS data using computationalfluid dynamics. Coefficient of correlation (R) was used in this report.RESULTS Twenty-four patients with 34 lesions were included in theanalysis. The IVUSFR, invasive FFR, Vessel QFR fixed flow (vQFRf),and Vessel QFR contrast flow (vQFRc) values varied from 0.52 to 1.00,0.71 to 0.99, 0.55 to 1.00, and 0.34 to 1.00, respectively. The coefficient of correlation (R) of FFR vs. IVUSFR was 0.79; FFR vs. vQFRf was0.72; FFR vs. vQFRc was 0.65 (Figure).CONCLUSION Compared to invasive FFR, IVUSFR and vQFRf showed asimilar coefficient of correlation and were better than vQFR contrast flow
Fil: Kajita, Alexandre. Medstart; Estados Unidos
Fil: Bezerra, Cristiano Guedes. Universidade Federal da Bahia; Brasil
Fil: Ozaki, Yuichi. Medstart; Estados Unidos
Fil: Dan, Kazuhiro. Medstart; Estados Unidos
Fil: Melaku, Gebremedhin D.. Medstart; Estados Unidos
Fil: Pinton, Fabio A.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil
Fil: Falcão, Breno A. A.. Hospital of Messejana; Brasil
Fil: Mariani, José. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil
Fil: Bulant, Carlos Alberto. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. National Laboratory For Scientific Computing; Brasil
Fil: Maso Talou, Gonzalo Daniel. National Laboratory For Scientific Computing; Brasil
Fil: Esteves, Antonio. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil
Fil: Blanco, Pablo Javier. National Laboratory For Scientific Computing; Brasil
Fil: Waksman, Ron. Medstart; Estados Unidos
Fil: Garcia Garcia, Hector M.. Medstart; Estados Unidos
Fil: Lemons, Pedro Alves. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil
Materia
FFR
IVUS
QFR
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/125166
Acceder
id CONICETDig_1d75828a135ad71fd23605eaddcc8bbc
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/125166
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling 500.05 Comparison Between Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) vs. Computational Fractional Flow Reserve Derived from Three-dimensional Intravascular Ultrasound (IVUSFR) and Quantitative Flow Ratio (QFR)Kajita, AlexandreBezerra, Cristiano GuedesOzaki, YuichiDan, KazuhiroMelaku, Gebremedhin D.Pinton, Fabio A.Falcão, Breno A. A.Mariani, JoséBulant, Carlos AlbertoMaso Talou, Gonzalo DanielEsteves, AntonioBlanco, Pablo JavierWaksman, RonGarcia Garcia, Hector M.Lemons, Pedro AlvesFFRIVUSQFRhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.2https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3https://purl.org/becyt/ford/2.6https://purl.org/becyt/ford/2BACKGROUND The determination of the ischemic status of a coronary artery by wireless physiologic assessment derived from angiography has been validated and approved in the US. However, the use ofplain angiography quantitative variables does not add much to thephysiology data since it has low correlation with fractional flowreserve (FFR) and predicts clinical outcomes poorly. Recently, a grayscale intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) derived physiology method(IVUSFR) was developed and showed a good correlation with invasiveFFR by combining the geometric advantages of IVUS with physiology.The aim of this study is to assess the coefficient of correlation (R) ofinvasive FFR compared to IVUSFR and quantitative flow ratio (QFR).METHODS Stable coronary artery disease (CAD) patients with intermediate lesions (i.e. 40?80% of diameter stenosis) were assessed by angiography and IVUS. QFR was derived from the angiography images, andIVUSFR was derived from quantitative IVUS data using computationalfluid dynamics. Coefficient of correlation (R) was used in this report.RESULTS Twenty-four patients with 34 lesions were included in theanalysis. The IVUSFR, invasive FFR, Vessel QFR fixed flow (vQFRf),and Vessel QFR contrast flow (vQFRc) values varied from 0.52 to 1.00,0.71 to 0.99, 0.55 to 1.00, and 0.34 to 1.00, respectively. The coefficient of correlation (R) of FFR vs. IVUSFR was 0.79; FFR vs. vQFRf was0.72; FFR vs. vQFRc was 0.65 (Figure).CONCLUSION Compared to invasive FFR, IVUSFR and vQFRf showed asimilar coefficient of correlation and were better than vQFR contrast flowFil: Kajita, Alexandre. Medstart; Estados UnidosFil: Bezerra, Cristiano Guedes. Universidade Federal da Bahia; BrasilFil: Ozaki, Yuichi. Medstart; Estados UnidosFil: Dan, Kazuhiro. Medstart; Estados UnidosFil: Melaku, Gebremedhin D.. Medstart; Estados UnidosFil: Pinton, Fabio A.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Falcão, Breno A. A.. Hospital of Messejana; BrasilFil: Mariani, José. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Bulant, Carlos Alberto. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. National Laboratory For Scientific Computing; BrasilFil: Maso Talou, Gonzalo Daniel. National Laboratory For Scientific Computing; BrasilFil: Esteves, Antonio. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Blanco, Pablo Javier. National Laboratory For Scientific Computing; BrasilFil: Waksman, Ron. Medstart; Estados UnidosFil: Garcia Garcia, Hector M.. Medstart; Estados UnidosFil: Lemons, Pedro Alves. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilElsevier2019-02-25info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/125166Kajita, Alexandre; Bezerra, Cristiano Guedes; Ozaki, Yuichi; Dan, Kazuhiro; Melaku, Gebremedhin D.; et al.; 500.05 Comparison Between Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) vs. Computational Fractional Flow Reserve Derived from Three-dimensional Intravascular Ultrasound (IVUSFR) and Quantitative Flow Ratio (QFR); Elsevier; Jacc: Cardiovascular Interventions; 12; 4; 25-2-2019; 1-11936-8798CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1936879819302006info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1016/j.jcin.2019.01.146info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T10:40:12Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/125166instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 10:40:12.369CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv 500.05 Comparison Between Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) vs. Computational Fractional Flow Reserve Derived from Three-dimensional Intravascular Ultrasound (IVUSFR) and Quantitative Flow Ratio (QFR)
title 500.05 Comparison Between Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) vs. Computational Fractional Flow Reserve Derived from Three-dimensional Intravascular Ultrasound (IVUSFR) and Quantitative Flow Ratio (QFR)
spellingShingle 500.05 Comparison Between Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) vs. Computational Fractional Flow Reserve Derived from Three-dimensional Intravascular Ultrasound (IVUSFR) and Quantitative Flow Ratio (QFR)
Kajita, Alexandre
FFR
IVUS
QFR
title_short 500.05 Comparison Between Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) vs. Computational Fractional Flow Reserve Derived from Three-dimensional Intravascular Ultrasound (IVUSFR) and Quantitative Flow Ratio (QFR)
title_full 500.05 Comparison Between Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) vs. Computational Fractional Flow Reserve Derived from Three-dimensional Intravascular Ultrasound (IVUSFR) and Quantitative Flow Ratio (QFR)
title_fullStr 500.05 Comparison Between Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) vs. Computational Fractional Flow Reserve Derived from Three-dimensional Intravascular Ultrasound (IVUSFR) and Quantitative Flow Ratio (QFR)
title_full_unstemmed 500.05 Comparison Between Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) vs. Computational Fractional Flow Reserve Derived from Three-dimensional Intravascular Ultrasound (IVUSFR) and Quantitative Flow Ratio (QFR)
title_sort 500.05 Comparison Between Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) vs. Computational Fractional Flow Reserve Derived from Three-dimensional Intravascular Ultrasound (IVUSFR) and Quantitative Flow Ratio (QFR)
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Kajita, Alexandre
Bezerra, Cristiano Guedes
Ozaki, Yuichi
Dan, Kazuhiro
Melaku, Gebremedhin D.
Pinton, Fabio A.
Falcão, Breno A. A.
Mariani, José
Bulant, Carlos Alberto
Maso Talou, Gonzalo Daniel
Esteves, Antonio
Blanco, Pablo Javier
Waksman, Ron
Garcia Garcia, Hector M.
Lemons, Pedro Alves
author Kajita, Alexandre
author_facet Kajita, Alexandre
Bezerra, Cristiano Guedes
Ozaki, Yuichi
Dan, Kazuhiro
Melaku, Gebremedhin D.
Pinton, Fabio A.
Falcão, Breno A. A.
Mariani, José
Bulant, Carlos Alberto
Maso Talou, Gonzalo Daniel
Esteves, Antonio
Blanco, Pablo Javier
Waksman, Ron
Garcia Garcia, Hector M.
Lemons, Pedro Alves
author_role author
author2 Bezerra, Cristiano Guedes
Ozaki, Yuichi
Dan, Kazuhiro
Melaku, Gebremedhin D.
Pinton, Fabio A.
Falcão, Breno A. A.
Mariani, José
Bulant, Carlos Alberto
Maso Talou, Gonzalo Daniel
Esteves, Antonio
Blanco, Pablo Javier
Waksman, Ron
Garcia Garcia, Hector M.
Lemons, Pedro Alves
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv FFR
IVUS
QFR
topic FFR
IVUS
QFR
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.2
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/2.6
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/2
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv BACKGROUND The determination of the ischemic status of a coronary artery by wireless physiologic assessment derived from angiography has been validated and approved in the US. However, the use ofplain angiography quantitative variables does not add much to thephysiology data since it has low correlation with fractional flowreserve (FFR) and predicts clinical outcomes poorly. Recently, a grayscale intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) derived physiology method(IVUSFR) was developed and showed a good correlation with invasiveFFR by combining the geometric advantages of IVUS with physiology.The aim of this study is to assess the coefficient of correlation (R) ofinvasive FFR compared to IVUSFR and quantitative flow ratio (QFR).METHODS Stable coronary artery disease (CAD) patients with intermediate lesions (i.e. 40?80% of diameter stenosis) were assessed by angiography and IVUS. QFR was derived from the angiography images, andIVUSFR was derived from quantitative IVUS data using computationalfluid dynamics. Coefficient of correlation (R) was used in this report.RESULTS Twenty-four patients with 34 lesions were included in theanalysis. The IVUSFR, invasive FFR, Vessel QFR fixed flow (vQFRf),and Vessel QFR contrast flow (vQFRc) values varied from 0.52 to 1.00,0.71 to 0.99, 0.55 to 1.00, and 0.34 to 1.00, respectively. The coefficient of correlation (R) of FFR vs. IVUSFR was 0.79; FFR vs. vQFRf was0.72; FFR vs. vQFRc was 0.65 (Figure).CONCLUSION Compared to invasive FFR, IVUSFR and vQFRf showed asimilar coefficient of correlation and were better than vQFR contrast flow
Fil: Kajita, Alexandre. Medstart; Estados Unidos
Fil: Bezerra, Cristiano Guedes. Universidade Federal da Bahia; Brasil
Fil: Ozaki, Yuichi. Medstart; Estados Unidos
Fil: Dan, Kazuhiro. Medstart; Estados Unidos
Fil: Melaku, Gebremedhin D.. Medstart; Estados Unidos
Fil: Pinton, Fabio A.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil
Fil: Falcão, Breno A. A.. Hospital of Messejana; Brasil
Fil: Mariani, José. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil
Fil: Bulant, Carlos Alberto. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. National Laboratory For Scientific Computing; Brasil
Fil: Maso Talou, Gonzalo Daniel. National Laboratory For Scientific Computing; Brasil
Fil: Esteves, Antonio. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil
Fil: Blanco, Pablo Javier. National Laboratory For Scientific Computing; Brasil
Fil: Waksman, Ron. Medstart; Estados Unidos
Fil: Garcia Garcia, Hector M.. Medstart; Estados Unidos
Fil: Lemons, Pedro Alves. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil
description BACKGROUND The determination of the ischemic status of a coronary artery by wireless physiologic assessment derived from angiography has been validated and approved in the US. However, the use ofplain angiography quantitative variables does not add much to thephysiology data since it has low correlation with fractional flowreserve (FFR) and predicts clinical outcomes poorly. Recently, a grayscale intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) derived physiology method(IVUSFR) was developed and showed a good correlation with invasiveFFR by combining the geometric advantages of IVUS with physiology.The aim of this study is to assess the coefficient of correlation (R) ofinvasive FFR compared to IVUSFR and quantitative flow ratio (QFR).METHODS Stable coronary artery disease (CAD) patients with intermediate lesions (i.e. 40?80% of diameter stenosis) were assessed by angiography and IVUS. QFR was derived from the angiography images, andIVUSFR was derived from quantitative IVUS data using computationalfluid dynamics. Coefficient of correlation (R) was used in this report.RESULTS Twenty-four patients with 34 lesions were included in theanalysis. The IVUSFR, invasive FFR, Vessel QFR fixed flow (vQFRf),and Vessel QFR contrast flow (vQFRc) values varied from 0.52 to 1.00,0.71 to 0.99, 0.55 to 1.00, and 0.34 to 1.00, respectively. The coefficient of correlation (R) of FFR vs. IVUSFR was 0.79; FFR vs. vQFRf was0.72; FFR vs. vQFRc was 0.65 (Figure).CONCLUSION Compared to invasive FFR, IVUSFR and vQFRf showed asimilar coefficient of correlation and were better than vQFR contrast flow
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-02-25
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/125166
Kajita, Alexandre; Bezerra, Cristiano Guedes; Ozaki, Yuichi; Dan, Kazuhiro; Melaku, Gebremedhin D.; et al.; 500.05 Comparison Between Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) vs. Computational Fractional Flow Reserve Derived from Three-dimensional Intravascular Ultrasound (IVUSFR) and Quantitative Flow Ratio (QFR); Elsevier; Jacc: Cardiovascular Interventions; 12; 4; 25-2-2019; 1-1
1936-8798
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/125166
identifier_str_mv Kajita, Alexandre; Bezerra, Cristiano Guedes; Ozaki, Yuichi; Dan, Kazuhiro; Melaku, Gebremedhin D.; et al.; 500.05 Comparison Between Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) vs. Computational Fractional Flow Reserve Derived from Three-dimensional Intravascular Ultrasound (IVUSFR) and Quantitative Flow Ratio (QFR); Elsevier; Jacc: Cardiovascular Interventions; 12; 4; 25-2-2019; 1-1
1936-8798
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1936879819302006
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1016/j.jcin.2019.01.146
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844614429389357056
score 13.070432

Publicaciones similares