Chest ACCP Member Benefits
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Krüger, S.
Right arrow Articles by Hoffmann, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Krüger, S.
Right arrow Articles by Hoffmann, R.
(Chest. 2005;128:1645-1649.)
© 2005 American College of Chest Physicians

Clinical Significance of Fractional Flow Reserve for Evaluation of Functional Lesion Severity in Stent Restenosis and Native Coronary Arteries*

Stefan Krüger, MD; Karl-Christian Koch, MD; Ira Kaumanns, MD; Marc W. Merx, MD; Peter Hanrath, MD and Rainer Hoffmann, MD

* From the Medical Clinic I, University Hospital, University of Technology, Aachen, Germany.

Correspondence to: Stefan Krüger, MD, Medizinische Klinik I, Universitätsklinik der RWTH Aachen, Pauwelstrasse 30, 52057 Aachen, Germany; e-mail: skrueger{at}lukasneuss.de

Objective: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is a valid surrogate for hemodynamic significance in stenotic native coronary arteries, but its validity in patients with coronary stent restenosis is unknown.

Design: Prospective.

Setting: University hospital.

Patients: We studied 42 patients (mean age ± 1 SD, 62 ± 10 years) with stent restenosis and 57 patients (mean age, 61 ± 12 years) with a native coronary lesion. All patients demonstrated a single coronary lesion of intermediate severity (stenosis diameter, 40 to 70%). Determination of FFR and quantitative angiography of the stenosis were performed.

Results: Stenosis diameter was comparable in both groups (native, 52 ± 11%; stent, 52 ± 9%; not significant [NS]). FFR was lower in stent restenosis (0.77 ± 0.15 vs 0.82 ± 0.12, p < 0.05) and more often pathologic with an FFR < 0.75 (48% vs 26%, p < 0.05) compared to native coronary stenosis. However, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for native stenosis was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 0.94) and for stent restenosis was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.97; NS). In patients with an FFR > 0.75, there was no adverse coronary event that was related to the stented lesion in the subsequent 6 months.

Conclusions: The threshold of stenosis diameter of coronary lesions for pathologic FFR measurement (FFR < 0.75) is similar for stent restenosis and native coronary stenosis. Thus, FFR measurement seems to be applicable for decision making in patients with stent restenosis.

Key Words: coronary artery stenosis • fractional flow reserve • stent restenosis






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2005 by the American College of Chest Physicians.