cFFR as an alternative to FFR: please do not contrast simplicity!

EuroIntervention 2017;13:e1487-e1488 published online e-edition December 2017. DOI: 10.4244/EIJV13I12A236

Antonio  Maria Leone
Antonio Maria Leone1*, MD; Pio Cialdella1, MD; Roberto Martin-Reyes2, MD; Sergio Baptista3, MD; Nicolas Amabile4, MD; Luis Raposo5, MD
1. Institute of Cardiology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy; 2. Unidad de Cardiologia Intervencionista, Servicio de Cardiologia, Hospital Universitario Fundacion Jimenez Diaz-IDC Salud, Madrid, Spain; 3. Department of Cardiology, Hosp

We thank Macaya et al1 for their interest in the MEMENTO-FFR study because it provides us with an additional opportunity to explain better the conclusions and implications for clinical practice of our study2. First of all, Macaya et al raised some concern on the design of the study and in particular the fact that FFR was considered the standard reference. In this regard, the design of the MEMENTO-FFR is not different from a number of other studies, namely on the ability of iFR to predict FFR3,4. We agree with their opinion that FFR is not infallible; nevertheless, we think ...

Sign in to read and download the full article

Forgot your password?

No account yet?
Sign up for free!

Create my pcr account

Join us for free and access thousands of articles from EuroIntervention, as well as presentations, videos, cases from

Read next article
Wire externalisation techniques for retrograde percutaneous coronary interventions of chronic total occlusions

Latest news