浅谈基于压力微导管血流储备分数与基于冠状动脉造影的血流储备分数在临床冠心病介入诊疗中使用上的对比  

A Brief Discussion on the Comparison between FFR and CAFFR in the Interventional Treatment of Acute Coronary Disease

作　　者：卢建发 黄槠萩 何健 LU Jianfa;HUANG Zhuqiu;HE Jian(Catheter Room of Shenzhen Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine,Shenzhen 518005,China)

机构地区：[1]深圳市中医院导管室,广东深圳518005

出　　处：《中国医药指南》2023年第29期117-120,共4页Guide of China Medicine

摘　　要：目的 比较基于压力微导管的血流储备分数(flow reserve fraction,FFR)与基于冠状动脉造影的血流储备分数(coronary angiography-derived FFR,caFFR)在临床使用上二者的对比,便于患者个体差异性进行更好的选择。方法 纳入深圳市中医院2021年4月至2022年3月接受压力微导管的FFR的患者45例与接受caFFR的患者22例,对其进行临床运用上多方面的比较。结果 压力微导管的FFR与caFFR在使用时间、耗材、费用、人员上各有不同。结论 结合二者的优势和不足以及患者冠状动脉、经济、身体状况等实际情况进行个体化的选择。Objective Comparing FFR to caFFR in clinical use makes a better choices for individual patient.Methods 45 patients who received FFR and 22 patients who received caFFR,in April 2021 to March 2022,have been compared in the clinical application in Shenzhen Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine.Results FFR and caFFR are different in terms of time,consumables,costs,and personnel.Conclusions Individualized selection is based on the patient's coronary artery,economy,physical condition and other actual conditions by combining the advantages with the disadvantages of FFR and caFFR.

关 键 词：冠状动脉造影 血流储备分数 冠心病 

分 类 号：R445[医药卫生—影像医学与核医学]