Coronary Physiology Metrics for Fractional Flow Reserve Assessment

Encompassing paired, repeated measurements of coronary physiology metrics from 763 subjects enrolled from 12 international centers. It compares the diagnostic performance of contrast-based FFR (cFFR), resting distal pressure/aortic pressure (Pd/Pa), and the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) against adenosine-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR).

Use Cases

• Compare the diagnostic accuracy of cFFR, Pd/Pa, and iFR against the FFR reference standard using paired measurements.
• Analyze the variability (SD) of repeated measurements for cFFR versus resting indexes like Pd/Pa and iFR.
• Identify the optimal binary threshold (e.g., 0.83 for cFFR) for predicting FFR ≤0.8 across different metrics.
• Model a hybrid decision-making strategy to reduce adenosine use based on cFFR, Pd/Pa, or iFR values.

Strengths

• Data from 763 subjects provides a substantial clinical sample size.
• Paired, repeated measurements of all physiology metrics (Pd/Pa, iFR, cFFR, FFR) allow for direct comparison.
• Multicenter data from 12 international centers may enhance generalizability.

Limitations

• Specific column names, sample data, and file formats are unknown, limiting immediate analytical utility.
• The dataset's structure and granularity (e.g., patient-level vs. measurement-level rows) are not specified.
• Contrast medium and adenosine doses varied per local practice, introducing potential heterogeneity.

Provenance

Source

Dryad digital repository.

Collection Method

Patients were recruited undergoing routine FFR assessment; paired measurements were made, and a central core lab analyzed blinded pressure tracings.

Freshness

Last updated in June 2020.

Geography

Data collected from 12 international centers.