ABSTRACT
Objective To compare the clinical effects of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and blood flow reserve fraction (FFR) in guiding the treatment of critical disease of coronary artery.Methods Forty nine patients with coronary artery disease who underwent coronary angiography were divided into IVUS group (n=43) and FFR group (n=51).In IVUS group,such as MLA ＜4 mm2 or coronary artery stenosis was insufficient,but IVUS showed unstable plaque,and we went the PCI treatment;in the FFR group,FFR＜0.75 was regarded as coronary stenting sign.The patients were followed up for 6 months.The incidence of cardiovascular adverse events was compared between the two groups.Results (1)There was no significant difference in general information and coronary angiography between the two groups (P＞ 0.05).(2)The proportion of interventional therapy in IVUS group was higher than that in FFR group (P＜0.01).(3)The incidence of adverse events between the two groups was not statistically significant (P＞0.05).Conclusion IVUS and FFR examination can be used to guide the interventional treatment of critical disease of coronary artery.However,the accuracy of IVUS can not replace the status of blood flow reserve.