Table 1: Studies Comparing FFR Against Non-invasive Tests.
| Study | Year | Patients/lesions (n/n) | Clinical setting | Ischaemia test | Best FFR cut-off value | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intravenous adenosine infusion (140 μg/kg/min) | ||||||
| Pijls, et al.[15] | 1995 | 60/60 | SVD | EX-ECG | 0.74 | 97 |
| Pijls, et al.[1] | 1996 | 45/45 | SVD | EX-ECG, MPS, DSE | 0.75 | 93 |
| Jiminez-Navarro, et al.[17] | 2001 | 21/21 | SVD | DSE | 0.75 | 90 |
| Rieber, et al.[18] | 2004 | 48/48 | MVD | MPS, DSE | 0.75 | 76-81 |
| Erhard, et al.[19] | 2005 | 47/47 | MVD | MPS, DSE | 0.75 | 77 |
| Hacker, et al.[20] | 2005 | 50/50 | SVD | MPS | 0.75 | 87 |
| Total or average (as applicable) | 271/271 | NA | NA | 0.75 | 87 | |
| Intracoronary adenosine bolus (maximum 40–60 µg) | ||||||
| Tron, et al.[21] | 1995 | 62/70 | 1,2 and 3-VD | MPS | 0.69 | 67 |
| Bartunek, et al.[22] | 1997 | 37/37 | SVD | DSE | 0.67 | 90 |
| Caymaz, et al.[23] | 2000 | 30/40 | SVD | MPS | 0.75 | 95 |
| Fearon, et al.[24] | 2000 | 10/10 | SVD | MPS | 0.75 | 95 |
| Chamuleau, et al.[25] | 2001 | 127/61 | MVD | MPS | 0.74 | 77 |
| Seo, et al.[26] | 2002 | 25/25 | Previous MI | MPS | 0.75 | 60 |
| Kruger, et al.[27] | 2005 | 42/42 | ISR | MPS | 0.75 | 88 |
| Samady, et al.[34] | 2006 | 48/48 | Previous MI | MPS, DSE | 0.78 | 92 |
| van de Hoef, et al.[61] | 2012 | 232/299 | MVD | MPS | 0.76 | 74 |
| Total or average (as applicable) | 613/732 | NA | NA | 0.74 | 83 | |
| Other methods of vasodilatation used to derive FFR | ||||||
| De Bruyne, et al.[14] (Intracoronary papaverine or adenosine) | 1995 | 60/60 | SVD | EX-ECG, MPS | 0.66 | 87 |
| Bartunek, et al.[35] (Intracoronary papaverine or adenosine) | 1996 | 75/75 | SVD | DSE | 0.75 | 81 |
| Abe, et al.[62] (Intravenous ATP) | 2000 | 46/46 | SVD | MPS | 0.75 | 91 |
| De Bruyne, et al.[36] (Intravenous or intracoronary adenosine or intravenous ATP) | 2001 | 57/57 | Previous MI | MPS | 0.78 | 85 |
| Yanagisawa, et al.[63] (Intracoronary papaverine) | 2002 | 165/194 | Previous MI | MPS | 0.75 | 76 |
| Ziaee, et al.[37] (Intravenous or intracoronary adenosine) | 2004 | 55/55 | Ostial | MPS, EX-ECG, DSE | 0.75 | 88 |
| Morishima, et al.[64] (Intracoronary papaverine) | 2004 | 20/20 | SVD | MPS | 0.75 | 85 |
| Kobori, et al.[65] (Intracoronary papaverine) | 2005 | 147/155 | Restenosis | MPS | 0.75 | 70 |
| Ragosta, et al.[38] (Intracoronary adenosine, 30–40 μg in the RCA, 80–100 μg in the LCA) | 2007 | 36/36 | MVD | MPS | 0.75 | 69 |
| Total or average (as applicable) | 661/698 | NA | NA | 0.74 | 81 | |
| Total or average (as applicable) for all studies | 1,545/1,701 | NA | NA | 0.74 | 83 | |
ATP = adenosine triphosphate; DSE = dobutamine stress echocardiogram; EX ECG = exercise electrocardiography; FFR = fractional flow reserve; ISR = in-stent restenosis; LCA = left coronary artery; MPS = myocardial perfusion scintigraphy; MVD = multivessel disease; NA = not applicable; RCA = right coronary artery; SVD = single-vessel disease; VD = vessel disease. Reprinted by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd: Nature Reviews Cardiology, van de Hoef, et al., 2013 (DOI: 10.1038/nrcardio.2013.86)[66]