The role of fractional flow reserve in determining tactics of revascularization in patients with ischemic heart disease

Main Article Content

M. V. Stan
A. V. Khokhlov
O. J. Zharinov
O. V. Zelenchuk
B. M. Todurov


In the light of the latest technologies, it is impossible to imagine the development of medicine and, in particular, cardiac surgery, without the use of minimally invasive treatments. Endovascular revascularization interventions have been used for over 20 years, and today they have become the «gold» standard for a number of coronary lesions. This review presents a large number of studies and evidence confirming the use of measuring the physiological parameters of coronary blood flow (fractional flow reserve) for the treatment of chronic coronary heart disease and the possibility of their use in acute coronary syndrome. In addition, there is evidence of the use of the method of instantaneous wave-free ratio, which is carried out without the use of vasodilators, thus eliminating their side effects. Despite the high informativeness and reliability of the fractional flow reserve methodology, its use is insufficient in clinics in Ukraine and the world as a whole. This technique is used to determine significant hemodynamic changes in the blood supply to the myocardium in the so-called «intermediate stenosis» of the coronary artery. Determining fractional flow reserve is a fairly simple and affordable method of diagnosis and, consequently, the correct treatment of coronary heart disease. The introduction of fractional flow reserve in routine practice will not only change the quantitative side of cardiac surgery and endovascular interventions, but also improve the quality of life of patients and reduce the economic costs of coronary heart disease treatment.

Article Details


fractional flow reserve, stenting of coronary arteries, revascularization, coronary heart disease


Азизов В.Б., Антонюк И.В., Атаманенко В.О. Реестр перкутанных коронарных вмешательств: расширенный сравнительный анализ результатов 2016 и 2017 года. От реперфузионного парадокса к снижению летальности // Серце і судини.– 2018.– № 3.– С. 9–27. doi: 10.3978/HV2018-3-9.

Achenbach S., Rudolph T., Rieber J. et al. Performing and interpreting fractional flow reserve measurements in clinical practice: an expert consensus document // Interv. Cardiol.– 2017.– Vol. 12.– P. 97–109. doi: 10.15420/icr.2017:13:2.

Adjedj J., De Bruyne B., Floré V. et al. Significance of intermediate values of fractional flow reserve in patients with coronary artery disease // Circulation.– 2016.– Vol. 133 (5).– P. 502–508. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.018747.

Ahmad Y., Howard J.P., Arnold A.D. et al. Mortality after drug-eluting stents vs. coronary artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of rando­­mized controlled trials // Eur. Heart J.– 2020.– Vol. 41 (Issue 34).– P. 3228–3235. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa135.

Barbato E., Noc M., Baumbach A. et al. Mapping interventional cardiology in Europe: the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) Atlas Project // Eur. Heart J.– 2020.– Vol. 41 (27).– P. 2579–2588. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa475.

Davies J.E., Sen S., Dehbi H.M. et al. Use of the Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve in PCI // New Engl. J. Med.– 2017.– Vol. 376.– P. 1824–1834. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1700445.

De Bruyne B., Pijls N.H., Kalesan B. et al., on behalf of the FAME 2 Trial Investigators. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease // New Engl. J. Med.– 2012.– Vol. 367.– P. 991–1001. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1205361.

Engstrøm T., Kelbæk H., Helqvist S. et al. DANAMI-3-PRIMULTI Investigators. Complete revascularisation versus treatment of the culprit lesion only in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (DANAMI-3-PRIMULTI): an open-label, randomised controlled trial // Lancet.– 2015.– Vol. 386.– P. 665–671. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60648-1.

Götberg M., Christiansen E.H., Gudmundsdottir I.J. et al. Instantaneous wave-free ratio versus fractional flow reserve to guide PCI // New Engl. J. Med.– 2017.– Vol. 10.– P. 1056. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1616540.

Johnson N.P., Tóth G.G., Lai D. et al. Prognostic value of fractional flow reserve: linking physiologic severity to clinical outcomes // J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2014.– Vol. 64 (16).– P. 1641–1654. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.07.973.

Kereiakes D.J., Teirstein P.S., Sarembock I.J. et al. The Truth and consequences of the COURAGE trial // J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.– 2007.– Vol. 50.– P. 1598–1603. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.113.000360.

Kern M.J., Yu K.M. Advances in Coronary Physiology: Update for 2017 // US Cardiol. Rev.– 2017.– Vol. 11.– P. 80. doi: 10.15420/usc.2017:13:1

Kern M.J. Is FFR of the left main coronary artery stenosis reliable? // Cardiac Interventions Today.– 2016.– Vol. 10.– P. 4.

Neumann F.-J., Sousa-Uva M., Ahlsson A. et al. A Byrne Jean-Philippe Collet Volkmar Falk Stuart J Head 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization // Eur. Heart J.– 2019.– Vol. 40.– P. 87–165. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394.

Park S.H., Jeon K.H., Lee J.M. et al. Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Versus Routine Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation in Patients With Intermediate Coronary Stenosis: Five-Year Clinical Outcomes of DEFER-DES Trial // Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv.– 2015.– P. 8–12. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.002442.

Pijls N.H., Fearon W.F., Tonino P.A. et al. FAME Study Investigators. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: 2-year follow-up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study // J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.– 2010.– Vol. 56 (3).– P. 177–184. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.04.012.

Puymirat E., Cayla G., Simon T. et al., on behalf of the FLOWER-MI Study Investigators. Multivessel PCI Guided by FFR or Angiography for Myocardial Infarction // New Engl. J. Med.–. 2021.– May 15. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2104650.

Rioufol G., Mewton N., Rabilloud M. et al., FUTURE Trial Investigators. The FUnctional Testing Underlying Coronary REvascularization (FUTURE) Study: a «real world» comparison of fractional flow reserve-guided management versus conventional management in multi vessel coronary artery disease patients. Presented at: American Heart Association Scientific Sessions.– 2016.

Sen S., Asrress K.N., Nijjer S. et al. Diagnostic classification of the instantaneous wave-free ratio is equivalent to fractional flow reserve and is not improved with adenosine administration. Results of CLARIFY (Classification Accuracy of Pressure-Only Ratios Against Indices Using Flow Study) // J. Amer. Coll. Cardiology.– 2013.– Vol. 61.– P. 1409–1420. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.01.034.

Sen S., Escaned J., Malik I.S. et al. Development and validation of a new adenosine-independent index of stenosis severity from coronary wave-intensity analysis: results of the ADVISE (ADenosine Vasodilator Independent Stenosis Evaluation) study // J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.– 2012.– Vol. 59.– P. 1392–1402. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.11.003.

Smits P.C., Abdel-Wahab M., Neumann F.–J. et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided multivessel angioplasty in myocardial infarction // New Engl. J. Med.– 2017.– Vol. 376.– P. 1234–1244. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1701067.

Sud M., Han L., Koh M. et al. Association between adherence to fractional flow reserve treatment thresholds and major adverse cardiac events in patients with coronary artery disease // JAMA.– 2020.– Vol. 324.– P. 2406–2414. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.22708.

Zhang D., Lv S., Song X. et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis // Heart.– 2015.– Vol. 101 (6).– P. 455–462. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2014-306578.

Zimmermann F.M., Ferrara A., Johnson N.P. et al. Deferral vs. performance of percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally non-significant coronary stenosis: 15-year follow-up of the DEFER trial // Eur. Heart J.– 2015.– Vol. 36.– P. 3182– 3188. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv452.

Most read articles by the same author(s)