Article Sidebar

PDF
Date Published: 06/06/2026
Abstract Views: 14
Views PDF: 2
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v561i1.18195
Issue
Vol. 561 No. 1 (2026)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Dương , Q. H., Trịnh , Đình H., Lê , T. A., Lê , V. C., Đỗ , T. P. A., & Hoàng , H. H. (2026). EVALUATION OF VIRTUAL FRACTIONAL FLOW RESERVE (VFFR) BASED ON CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY AND 3D QUANTIFICATION IN PATIENTS WITH INTERMEDIATE CORONARY ARTERY STENOSIS AT THANH HOA GENERAL HOSPITAL. Vietnam Medical Journal, 561(1). https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v561i1.18195

EVALUATION OF VIRTUAL FRACTIONAL FLOW RESERVE (VFFR) BASED ON CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY AND 3D QUANTIFICATION IN PATIENTS WITH INTERMEDIATE CORONARY ARTERY STENOSIS AT THANH HOA GENERAL HOSPITAL

Quang Hiệp Dương 1,2,, Đình Hoàng Trịnh 2, Thế Anh Lê 2, Văn Cường Lê 3, Thị Phương Anh Đỗ 1, Huy Hiệu Hoàng 1
1 Hanoi Medical University - Thanh Hoa Campus
2 Thanh Hoa General Hospital
3 Thanh Hoa Department of Health

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the value of virtual Fractional Flow Reserve (vFFR) using two-dimensional coronary artery angiography combined with three-dimensional geometric analysis and to analyze related factors in patients with moderate coronary artery disease. Subjects and Methods: This prospective study included 43 patients with intermediate coronary artery stenosis treated at Thanh Hoa General Hospital from June 2025 to October 2025. vFFR measurements were performed using CAAS Workstation software. Anatomical characteristics (QCA, percentage of diameter stenosis, lesion length) and vFFR values were analyzed for correlation and evaluated regarding their impact on intervention decisions. Results: The study comprised 43 patients with a mean age of 72.29±7.42 years, the majority of whom were male (71%). Hypertension (88.9%) and diabetes mellitus (42.2%) were prevalent risk factors. The mean vFFR value was 0.70±0.04. A significant negative correlation was observed between the degree of stenosis (QCA) and vFFR (r=−0.68, p<0.001). When assuming a QCA threshold of ≥58% for intervention decision-making, the discordance rate compared to the vFFR standard of ≤0.80 was 8.9% (comprising 4.2% unnecessary interventions and 4.2% missed hemodynamically significant lesions). Conclusion: vFFR is a feasible and highly valuable tool for assessing the functional significance of intermediate coronary artery lesions.

Article Details

Keywords

FFR, vFFR, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI).

References

1. Clinical expert consensus document on quantitative coronary angiography from the Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics - PMC. , accessed: 11/16/2025.
2. Hill D., Bykowski A., and Lim M.J. (2025). Fractional Flow Reserve. StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL).
3. Tonino P.A.L., Fearon W.F., De Bruyne B., et al. (2010). Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation. J Am Coll Cardiol, 55(25), 2816–2821.
4. Lake P., Halbach M., Kardasch M., et al. (2023). Comparison of vessel fractional flow reserve with invasive resting full-cycle ratio in patients with intermediate coronary lesions. Int J Cardiol, 377, 1–8.
5. Scoccia A., Byrne R.A., Banning A.P., et al. (2023). Fractional flow reserve or 3D-quantitative-coronary-angiography based vessel-FFR guided revascularization. Rationale and study design of the prospective randomized fast III trial. Am Heart J, 260, 1–8.
6. Berry C., van ’t Veer M., Witt N., et al. (2013). VERIFY (VERification of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve for the Assessment of Coronary Artery Stenosis Severity in EverydaY Practice): a multicenter study in consecutive patients. J Am Coll Cardiol, 61(13), 1421–1427.
7. Morris P.D., Ryan D., Morton A.C., et al. (2013). Virtual fractional flow reserve from coronary angiography: modeling the significance of coronary lesions: results from the VIRTU-1 (VIRTUal Fractional Flow Reserve From Coronary Angiography) study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 6(2), 149–157.
8. Ross R. (1999). Atherosclerosis--an inflammatory disease. N Engl J Med, 340(2), 115–126.
9. Masdjedi K., Tanaka N., Van Belle E., et al. (2022). Vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) for the assessment of stenosis severity: the FAST II study. EuroIntervention J Eur Collab Work Group Interv Cardiol Eur Soc Cardiol, 17(18), 1498–1505.
10. Gould K.L. and Johnson N.P. (2018). Coronary Physiology Beyond Coronary Flow Reserve in Microvascular Angina: JACC State-of-the-Art Review. J Am Coll Cardiol, 72(21), 2642–2662.
11. Libby P., Pasterkamp G., Crea F., et al. (2019). Reassessing the Mechanisms of Acute Coronary Syndromes. Circ Res, 124(1), 150–160.
12. Curzen N., Rana O., Nicholas Z., et al. (2014). Does routine pressure wire assessment influence management strategy at coronary angiography for diagnosis of chest pain?: the RIPCORD study. Circ Cardiovasc Interv, 7(2), 248–255.
13. van de Hoef T.P., Stegehuis V.E., Madera-Cambero M.I., et al. (2023). Impact of core laboratory assessment on treatment decisions and clinical outcomes using combined fractional flow reserve and coronary flow reserve measurements - DEFINE-FLOW core laboratory sub-study. Int J Cardiol, 377, 9–16.