Resting Full-Cycle Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve: A SWEDEHEART-Registry-Based Comparison of Two Physiological Indexes for Assessing Coronary Stenosis Severity

<table class="table-group" id="tab5"><tr><td><table class="table"><tr><td class="thead-hr" colspan="4"><hr/></td></tr><tr class="thead"><td class="align_left"> </td><td class="align_center">RFR treat ≤0.85</td><td class="align_center">RFR 0.86–0.93 “grey zone”</td><td class="align_center">RFR defer ≥0.94</td></tr><tr><td class="thead-hr" colspan="4"><hr/></td></tr><tr><td class="align_left">FFR defer</td><td class="align_center">5 (2.5%)</td><td class="align_center">68 (34.0%)</td><td class="align_center">38 (19.0%)</td></tr><tr><td class="align_left">FFR treat</td><td class="align_center">54 (27.0%)</td><td class="align_center">31 (15.5%)</td><td class="align_center">4 (2.0%)</td></tr><tr class="table-tr"><td colspan="4"><hr class="tbody-hr"/></td></tr></table></td></tr><tr class="table-fn"><td><div><i>Note.</i> Values are expressed as <i>n</i> (%). FFR, fractional flow reserve; RFR, resting full-cycle ratio.<br/></div></td></tr></table>

<div>Classification of lesions according to the hybrid approach.</div>

Journal of Interventional Cardiology

tab5

Table 5

Table 5: Resting Full-Cycle Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve: A SWEDEHEART-Registry-Based Comparison of Two Physiological Indexes for Assessing Coronary Stenosis Severity 

Table 5 | Resting Full-Cycle Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve: A SWEDEHEART-Registry-Based Comparison of Two Physiological Indexes for Assessing Coronary Stenosis Severity 