Aims: Adoption of fractional flow reserve (FFR) remains low (6-8%), partly because of the time, cost and potential inconvenience associated with
Ricardo Petraco1*, MD; Jin Joo Park3, MD; Sayan Sen1, MBBS; Sukhjinder S. Nijjer1, MBChB; Iqbal S. Malik1, MBBS, PhD; Mauro Echavarría-Pinto², MD; Kaleab N. Asrress6, MA, BM, BCh; Chang-Wook Nam4, MD, PhD; Enrico Macías², MD; Rodney A. Foale1, MD; Amarjit Sethi1, MBBS, PhD; Ghada W. Mikhail1, MBBS, MD; Raffi Kaprielian1, MBBS, MD; Christopher S. Baker1, MBBS, PhD; David Lefroy1, MB, BChir; Michael Bellamy1, MBBS, MD; Mahmud Al-Bustami1, MD; Masood A. Khan1, MB, BChir, MA; Nieves Gonzalo², MD, PhD; Alun D. Hughes
1. International Centre for Circulatory Health, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London and Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; 2. Cardiovascular Institute, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madr
Sign in to read and download the full articleForgot 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
instantaneous wave-free ratiofractional flow reservephysiology-guided pciadenosine
Read next articleComparison of intravenous adenosine and intravenous regadenoson for the measurement of pressure-derived coronary fractional flow reserve