Relationship between FFR, CFR and coronary microvascular resistance – Practical implications for FFR-guided percutaneous coronary intervention

Objective The aim was threefold: 1) expound the independent physiological parameters that drive FFR, 2) elucidate contradictory conclusions between fractional flow reserve (FFR) and coronary flow reserve (CFR), and 3) highlight the need of both FFR and CFR in clinical decision making. Simple explicit theoretical models were supported by coronary data analyzed retrospectively. Methodology FFR was expressed as a function of pressure loss coefficient, aortic pressure and hyperemic coronary microvascular resistance. The FFR-CFR relationship was also demonstrated mathematically and was shown to be exclusively dependent upon the coronary microvascular resistances. The equations were validated in a first series of 199 lesions whose pressures and distal velocities were monitored. A second dataset of 75 lesions with pre- and post-PCI measures of FFR and CFR was also analyzed to investigate the clinical impact of our hemodynamic reasoning. Results Hyperemic coronary microvascular resistance and pressure loss coefficient had comparable impacts (45% and 49%) on FFR. There was a good concordance (y = 0.96 x − 0.02, r2 = 0.97) between measured CFR and CFR predicted by FFR and coronary resistances. In patients with CFR < 2 and CFR/FFR ≥ 2, post-PCI CFR was significantly >2 (p < 0.001), whereas it was not (p = 0.94) in patients with CFR < 2 and CFR/FFR < 2. Conclusion The FFR behavior and FFR-CFR relationship are predictable from basic hemodynamics. Conflicting conclusions between FFR and CFR are explained from coronary vascular resistances. As confirmed by our results, FFR and CFR are complementary; they could jointly contribute to better PCI guidance through the CFR-to-FFR ratio in patients with coronary artery disease.