Fractional flow reserve is the ratio between the utmost flow of blood in a diseased artery and the hypothetical utmost flow of blood in a normal artery. Physicians use fractional flow reserve technique along with angiography in image-guided treatments of the coronary artery disease. The patient needs to be given a hyperemic agent in this technique, the one that elevates the flow of blood the target region.
Recently, Philips demonstrated data from 2 clinical studies of its instant wave-free ratio (iFR) developed against fractional flow reserve in the treatment and diagnosis of heart disease. The use of iFR, which is a pressure-derived index, can result in rapid, more cost-effective treatments and diagnoses.
The iFR-guided methods utilize the similar equipment and guidewires as that used by FFR-guided procedures, but shun the hyperemic agent administration, reducing the patient uneasiness. Hyperemic drugs can result in increased heart rate and cause flushing, throbbing of the heart, and a heightened temperature.
Christopher Barys, at Philips Volcano’s Business Leader, said, “The results of these clinical trials emphasize the value of iFR and its advantages for effective diagnoses and patient safety. We wish that the outcomes advance the implementation of iFR to assist physicians in enhancing patient care.”
Philips revealed data from a couple of studies that involved more than 4,500 patients. The randomized and blind DEFINE FLAIR study compared the cost efficiencies and clinical outcomes of iFR and fractional flow reserve treatments of patients in North America, Asia, and Europe, whereas the randomized iFR Swedeheart trial estimated outcomes with the use of fractional flow reserve or iFR with devices from Philips.
According to the study, the 1-year outcome statistics from the studies illustrated that iFR had reduced procedure duration and low costs in comparison to fractional flow reserve keeping the similar rate of main adverse cardiac events.
Manesh Patel, Duke University School of Medicine, said, “Observations from these 2 significant clinical outcome trials have the capability to considerably enhance the usage of coronary physiological evaluation. One of the obstructions to iFR implementation has been the inadequate outcome data, nevertheless, at present, we have proof that an iFR-guided treatment approach is as dependable as a fractional flow reserve-guided approach with reference to future cardiovascular events.”