View clinical trials related to Coronary Circulation.
Filter by:The overall purpose of Flash FFR Ⅱ is to investigate whether coronary angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (caFFR), compared with fractional flow reserve (FFR) measured by a pressure wire, has non-inferior clinical effect and cost benefit in guiding the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with moderate coronary artery stenosis in terms of long-term clinical prognosis.
The study will compare two invasive methods (FFR -fractional flow reserve and iFR—instantaneous wave free ratio) for assessment of hemodynamic impact of coronary stenosis on myocardial perfusion. There is a very good correlation between these methods for the assessment of hemodynamic significance in a broad spectrum of lesions. However, this correlation decreases significantly near the cut off points for each method. The investigators will try to find possible explanations for these differences by detailed morphology assessment of coronary stenosis using optical coherence tomography (OCT), analysis of gene polymorphisms that play a role in vasodilatation, and by shear stress analysis. The head-to-head comparison between FFR and iFR is not simple, because there is no "gold standard" for assessment of hemodynamic significance. Studies comparing these methods have used hyperemic stenosis resistance (HSR). For this kind of measurement it is necessary to measure the speed of blood flow. This is usually done by a Doppler analysis of flow. Unfortunately, the Doppler signal can yield many artificial or erroneous indicators, and obtaining a good quality signal is frequently time-consuming. These are the reasons that HSR has not been used in routine practice. The investigators have developed a new console and software that can provide real time analysis of the Doppler signal. It allows us to easily measure HSR, and to differentiate between the FFR and iFR measures through intrabeat analysis of microvascular resistance (lowest microvascular resistance is an essential condition for proper pressure measurement). Using this tool, it is possible to automatically identify the point of lowest microvascular resistance during each cardiac beat. The pressure gradient can then be measured at that point. This approach can eliminate almost all uncertainties in assessment of the pressure gradient produced by coronary stenosis. This tool can potentially improve the existing methods used to precisely reveal a significant stenosis. This should increase the number of hemodynamic guided procedures.