Copyright
©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Cardiol. Mar 26, 2016; 8(3): 283-292
Published online Mar 26, 2016. doi: 10.4330/wjc.v8.i3.283
Published online Mar 26, 2016. doi: 10.4330/wjc.v8.i3.283
Figure 1 Comparison of % major adverse cardiac events in fractional flow reserve and pressure drop coefficient groups.
MACE: Major adverse cardiac events; FFR: Fractional flow reserve; CDP: Pressure drop coefficient.
Figure 2 Comparison of patient conditions between fractional flow reserve and pressure drop coefficient groups at follow-up.
A: FFR < 0.75 and CDP > 27.9; B: FFR > 0.75 and CDP < 27.9; C: FFR < 0.80 and CDP > 25.4; D: FFR > 0.80 and CDP < 25.4. FFR: Fractional flow reserve; CDP: Pressure drop coefficient.
Figure 3 Survival curves.
A: FFR < 0.75 and CDP > 27.9 groups (P = 0.048); B: FFR < 0.80 and CDP > 25.4 (P = 0.066); C: FFR > 0.75 and CDP < 27.9 groups (P = 0.29); D: FFR > 0.80 and CDP < 25.4 (P = 0.09). FFR: Fractional flow reserve; CDP: Pressure drop coefficient.
- Citation: Effat MA, Peelukhana SV, Banerjee RK. Clinical outcomes of combined flow-pressure drop measurements using newly developed diagnostic endpoint: Pressure drop coefficient in patients with coronary artery dysfunction. World J Cardiol 2016; 8(3): 283-292
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1949-8462/full/v8/i3/283.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4330/wjc.v8.i3.283