Functional measurement of intermediate coronary stenosis using fractional flow reserve: Based Technique
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64554/nujms.2026.2.1.5Keywords:
coronary angiography; fractional flow reserve; intermediate coronary stenosis; quantitative coronary angiography; revascularization.Abstract
Background: Coronary angiography has limited ability to determine the functional significance of intermediate coronary lesions. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) provides a physiological assessment that can complement angiographic evaluation. Objective: To evaluate the relationship between FFR and angiographic severity assessed by visual estimation and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) in intermediate coronary
lesions.
Methods: This cross-sectional observational study included 43 consecutive symptomatic patients with 53 intermediate coronary lesions evaluated at the catheterization laboratory of Ibn Al-Bitar Center for Cardiac Surgery and Cardiology between July and December 2013. Diameter stenosis was assessed visually by two interventional cardiologists and by QCA. Lesions were classified according to QCA into Group A (50–70% stenosis; 29 lesions) and Group B (30–49% stenosis; 24 lesions). FFR was measured during maximal hyperemia induced by intravenous or intracoronary adenosine using a pressure-wire system. A lesion was considered functionally significant when FFR was ≤0.80.
Results: Mean FFR was 0.87 ± 0.068 (range, 0.65–0.99). FFR was ≤0.80 in 5 of 29 lesions (17%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6–36%) in Group A and in none of the 24 lesions in Group B (0%; 95% CI, 0–14%). The difference between groups was not statistically significant (Fisher’s exact
test, P = 0.056), and agreement between angiographic group and FFR category was slight (κ = 0.16). QCA diameter stenosis showed a weak inverse correlation with FFR (r = −0.40, P = 0.003). Mean diameter stenosis was 50 ± 10.25% by QCA and 57 ± 11.14% by visual assessment. Adenosine-related adverse effects were predominantly minor; chest discomfort occurred in 15 patients (34.9%) and bradycardia below 50 beats/min in 8 (18.6%). No death or myocardial infarction occurred.
Conclusion: Angiographic severity showed only a weak relationship with the physiological significance of intermediate coronary lesions in this small single-center study. FFR may provide additional information when angiography alone is insufficient to determine lesion significance, although larger studies with clinical follow-up are required
Downloads
References
1. Canty JM Jr. Control of coronary blood flow. In: Libby P, Bonow RO, Mann DL, et al.,
editors. Braunwald's Heart Disease. 9th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2012. p. 1049–74.
2. Canty JM Jr, Brooks A. Phasic volumetric coronary venous outflow patterns in
conscious dogs. Am J Physiol. 1990;258(5 Pt 2):H1457–63.
https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.1990.258.5.H1457. PubMed.
3. Kern MJ. Nonangiographic coronary lesion assessment. In: Kern MJ, editor. The
Interventional Cardiac Catheterization Handbook. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders;
2013. p. 244–90.
4. Shaw LJ, Iskandrian AE. Prognostic value of gated myocardial perfusion SPECT. J
Nucl Cardiol. 2004;11(2):171–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclcard.2003.12.004.
PubMed.
5. Metz LD, Beattie M, Hom R, et al. The prognostic value of normal exercise myocardial
perfusion imaging and exercise echocardiography: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol.
2007;49(2):227–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2006.08.048. JACC.
6. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Heyndrickx GR, et al. Pressure-derived fractional flow reserve
to assess serial epicardial stenoses: theoretical basis and animal validation. Circulation.
2000;101(15):1840–7. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.101.15.1840. PMC.
7. Pijls NH, De Bruyne B, Peels K, et al. Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess
the functional severity of coronary-artery stenoses. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(26):1703–
8. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199606273342604. New England Journal of Medicine
8. Kern MJ, Donohue TJ, Aguirre FV, et al. Clinical outcome of deferring angioplasty in
patients with normal translesional pressure-flow velocity measurements. J Am Coll
Cardiol. 1995;25(1):178–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(94)00328-N.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
9. Tonino PAL, Fearon WF, De Bruyne B, et al. Angiographic versus functional severity
of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study: fractional flow reserve versus
angiography in multivessel evaluation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(25):2816–21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.11.096. ScienceDirect.
10. Duran Karaduman B, Akcay M, Ayhan H, et al. Comparison between fractional flow
reserve and visual assessment for moderate coronary artery stenosis. Kardiol Pol.
2017;75(6):545–52. https://doi.org/10.5603/KP.a2017.0037. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
11. Fischer JJ, Samady H, McPherson JA, et al. Comparison between visual assessment
and quantitative angiography versus fractional flow reserve for native coronary
narrowings of moderate severity. Am J Cardiol. 2002;90(3):210–5.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9149(02)02456-6. PubMed.
12. Ahmed MK, Emara AAA, Mena MB, et al. Quantitative coronary angiography for
assessment of non-obstructive coronary artery disease: comparison to fractional flow
reserve. Int J Cardiovasc Res. 2018;7(4). https://doi.org/10.4172/2324-8602.1000385.
scitechnol.com.
13. Tonino PAL, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography
for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(3):213–24.
https://doi.org/: 10.1056/NEJMoa0807611. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
14. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus
medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(11):991–1001.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1205361. PubMed.
15. Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on
myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(2):87–165.
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394. Oxford Academic.
16. Lawton JS, Tamis-Holland JE, Bangalore S, et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI guideline for
coronary artery revascularization. Circulation. 2022;145(3):e18–e114.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ninevah University Journal of Medical Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.