Kommentar zu „PCI bei KHK: Vergleich zweier Methoden zur Entscheidungsfindung“

• Literatur

• 1 Nam CW, Yoon HJ, Cho YK. et al. Outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention in intermediate coronary artery disease: fractional flow reserve-guided versus intravascular ultrasound-guided. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2010; 3: 812-817
• 2 Park KW, Kang SH, Yang HM. et al. Impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance in routine percutaneous coronary intervention for conventional lesions: data from the EXCELLENT trial. Int J Cardiol 2013; 167: 721-726
• 3 Nascimento BR, de Sousa MR, Koo BK. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of intravascular ultrasound-derived minimal lumen area compared with fractional flow reserve – meta-analysis: pooled accuracy of IVUS luminal area versus FFR. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 84: 377-384
• 4 Jang JS, Shin HC, Bae JS. et al. Diagnostic Performance of Intravascular Ultrasound-Derived Minimal Lumen Area to Predict Functionally Significant Non-Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: a Meta-Analysis. Korean Circ J 2016; 46: 622-631
• 5 Bezerra CG, Hideo-Kajita A, Bulant CA. et al. Coronary fractional flow reserve derived from intravascular ultrasound imaging: Validation of a new computational method of fusion between anatomy and physiology. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2019; 93: 266-274