Computerised Methodologies for Non-Invasive Angiography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve Assessment: A Critical Review

Table 2

Key advantages and limitations of all the angiography-derived FFR software.

Angiography-derived FFR methodologies	Advantages	Limitations
vFFR	Fast FFR computation	Need for rotational coronary angiography
	Incorporation of coronary microvascular information	Generic boundary condition
vFAI	First methodology with a reasonable computation time with a clinical potential	Single-vessel analysis
		Assumption of static coronary flow across the vessel
QFR	Instantaneous FFR computation	Single vessel analysis
	User-friendly interface	Unsuitable for aorto-ostial lesion assessment
	Estimates flow from patient-specific data and TIMI frame count	Need for nitroglycerin administration prior to angiography image acquisition
	Extensively validated against FFR
FFRangio	Complete functional assessment of coronary tree	Unsuitable for aorto-ostial lesion assessment
	Fast FFR computation
	Able to reconstruct coronary artery anatomy using more than 2 angiographic projections
FFRsim	Simplified equation for FFR calculation	Single validation study
	Flow distribution before and after bifurcation was calculated	TIMI frame count used following administration of intracoronary adenosine
CAAS-vFFR	Instantaneous FFR computation	Single-vessel analysis
	User-friendly interface	Unsuitable for aorto-ostial lesion assessment
		Need for invasive blood pressure information

Fast FFR computation is based on the latest VIRTU-Fast study [13].