The Official Journal of EuroPCR and the European Association of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (EAPCI)

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Comparison of pressure wire versus microcatheter for fractional flow reserve measurements: limitations of microcatheter-based measurements

EuroIntervention 2019;14:1703-1704. DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00338L

1. IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; 2. Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom


We read with great interest the recent paper by Pouillot et al1, assessing the clinical impact of the new fractional flow reserve (FFR) microcatheter (Navvus™ MicroCatheter; ACIST Medical Systems, Inc., Eden Prairie, MN, USA). Seventy-seven consecutive patients were recruited into a prospective registry and had FFR evaluated by microcatheter (FFRMC) and by pressure wire (FFRW). The authors reported that the mean FFRW (0.83±0.08) was significantly higher than the mean FFRMC (0.80±0.10) (p=0.012) and that the Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias of –0.03±0.05 for lower FFRMC values compared to FFRW values. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) between FFRW and FFRMC was 0.85 (p&...

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 PCRonline.com

Read next article
Reply to the letter to the editor regarding the article “Pressure wire versus microcatheter for FFR measurement: a head-to-head comparison”