Recently a new study by Tsunamoto et al. from Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine (Heart and Vessels, 2026) provides the first direct comparison of μFR and QFR against wire-based FFR in a realworld chronic coronary syndrome cohort (82 vessels, 62 patients). The findings clearly favor μFR.

📊 Key results (FFR ≤0.80 as reference)

✅ Feasibility
μFR: 99% (1/101 vessels excluded – poor image quality)
QFR: 81% (19/101 vessels excluded – foreshortening, overlap, poor quality)

⏱️ Analysis time
μFR: 88.3 seconds
QFR: 263.6 seconds (3× longer, p<0.001)

📈 Diagnostic performance
Correlation with FFR: μFR r=0.794 ; QFR r=0.705
AUC: μFR 0.93 ; QFR 0.87 (p=0.04)
Specificity: μFR 97% ; QFR 92%

📌 Subgroup analysis – in moderate/severe calcified lesions (49% of vessels), μFR maintained strong correlation (r=0.773, p<0.001), while QFR correlation dropped to r=0.656.

🔍 Possible reasons for the observed differences
Singleangiographicview – no need for a second optimal projection, which is often challenging in tortuous, diffuse, or heavily calcified lesions.
AIpowered automatic lumen detection including side branches, with Murraylawbased stepdown reference diameter.
High reproducibility (ICC ≥0.97).

💡 Clinical implication
μFR is a practical, wirefree physiology tool that can be applied even when conventional QFR is not feasible. It may expand physiologyguided PCI in complex realworld anatomies.

📖 Read the full article: https://lnkd.in/em-6DDRV

hashtag#μFR hashtag#QFR hashtag#FFR hashtag#InterventionalCardiology hashtag#Physiology hashtag#PulseMedical hashtag#KobeUniversity