Study Methodology & Analysis

Pooled Analysis from VERIFY 2 and CONTRAST Showed: DFR ™ and iFR™ are Numerically Identical

Methodology of DFR Study¹

DFR values were compared to iFR values using the 893 waveform tracings from the 833 patients pooled from the VERIFY 2 and CONTRAST studies
The DFR window uses two criteria: Pa < mean Pa and down-sloping Pa
No ECG signal were required
No need to identify dicrotic notch

Intermediate Lesion¹

DFR: 0.90 | iFR: 0.90

Severe Lesion¹

DFR: 0.71 | iFR: 0.71

DFR is as Accurate to iFR as Two iFR Measurements are to Each Other¹

DFR values were compared to iFR values using the 893 waveform tracings from the 833 patients pooled from the VERIFY 2 and CONTRAST studies.¹

VERIFY 2 + CONTRAST Pooled Analysis: DFR Showed Equivalency to iFR

VERIFY 2 Analysis: DFR is within the Intra-iFR Variation of ~0.01

Two iFR Measurements Taken Directly After Each Other

Diastolic pressure ratio: new approach and validation vs. the instantaneous wave-free ratio¹

Read the latest European Heart Journal publication which demonstrates numerical equivalence between DFR and iFR.

dPR = iFR™ 6 Definitions of Proof¹

Selecting the wave-free period (wfp) is not necessary to obtain results numerically identical to iFR¹

Clinical Outcomes

IRIS-FFR Registry: DFR and iFR Have Equivalent Prognostic Performance in Over 900 Patients²

A total of 1,102 deferred lesions in 926 patients from the IRIS-FFR Registry were retrospectively evaluated by five non‑hyperemic pressure ratios (NHPR), including DFR, for prognostic performance.

Greater divergence of the curves demonstrates better prognostic ability
There was no statistically significant difference in prognostic performance among any of the NHPRs