1. Davies JE, et al., DEFINE-FLAIR: A Multi- Centre, Prospective, International, Randomized, Blinded Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Cost Efficiencies of iFR and FFR Decision-Making for Physiological Guided Coronary Revascularization. New England Journal of Medicine, epub March 18, 2017.
2. Gotberg M, et al., Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve Guided Intervention (IFR-SWEDEHEART): A Multicenter, Prospective, Registry-Based Randomized Clinical Trial. New England Journal of Medicine, epub March 18, 2017.
3. Patel M. “Cost-effectiveness of instantaneous wave-Free Ratio (iFR) compared with Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) to guide coronary revascularization decision-making.” Late-breaking Clinical Trial presentation at ACC on March 10, 2018.
4. Patel M, et al., ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2017 Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Patients with Stable Ischemic Heart Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 May 2;69(17):2212-2241.
5. ACC CathPCI Hospital Registry.
6. Lofti A, et al. Focused update of expert consensus statement: Use of invasive assessments of coronary physiology and structure: A position statement of the society of cardiac angiography and interventions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;1–12.
7. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The task force on myocardial revascularization of the European society of cardiology (ESC) and European association for cardio-thoracic surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J. 2018;00:1-96.
8. An iFR cut-point of 0.89 matches best with an FFR ischemic cut-point of 0.80 with a specificity of 87.8% and sensitivity of 73.0%. (From ADVISE II, and iFR Operator’s Manual 505-0101.23.
9. Jeremias A et al. The DEFINE PCI Trial: Blinded Physiological Assessment of Residual Ischemia after Successful Angiographic Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, presented at ACC 2019.
10. Co-registration tools available within IntraSight 7 configuration via SyncVision