PressureWire™ X Guidewire

For Wireless Physiology

PressureWire X Guidewire

Use of Physiology Significantly Reduces Major Adverse Coronary Events1-3

The CorMicA (Coronary Microvascular Angina) trial revealed that patients may benefit when Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction (CMD) is accurately diagnosed and appropriately treated.4 Learn more about diagnosing and treating CMD.

RFR clinical evidence derives from assessing over 3,500 lesions in 2,000 patients, and much of that evidence is from ILUMIEN I + PREDICT, VALIDATE RFR, IRIS-FFR and RE-VALIDATE RFR.5-9

Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is supported by more than 600 published studies including the FAME clinical trials.1,2,10

When integrated into cardiac cath lab procedures, measurement of FFR has been shown to reduce the incidence of major adverse coronary events (MACE) in patients being treated for complex coronary artery disease.1-3

The FAME study—evaluating complex lesions—examined FFR measured exclusively by the PressureWire™ Guidewire. Results showed that compared to angiography alone, FFR:

  • Allows more accurate identification of hemodynamically relevant stenoses2
  • Reduces mortality and myocardial infarction by 34%11
  • Lowers procedure and 1-year follow-up costs by 14%3
  • Does not increase procedure time2
  • Decreases the amount of contrast agent used2

Precise measurement of intravascular diagnostics relies on the PressureWire™ X Guidewire that combines excellent maneuverability—even in tortuous vessels—and reliable readings12, both of which can ensure accurate information in the cath lab.


  1. Pijls NH, Fearon WF, Tonino PA, et al. Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Guiding Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease. 2-Year Follow-Up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) Study. JACC. 2010; 56(3): 177-184.
  2. Tonino PA, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. New Engl J Med. 2009;360:213-224. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0807611.
  3. Fearon WF, Bornschein B, Tonino PA, et al. Economic Evaluation of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Multivessel Disease. Circulation. 2010; 122:2545-2550.
  4. Ford TJ, Stanley B, Sidik N, et al. 1-year outcomes of angina management guided by invasive coronary function testing (CorMicA). JACC Intv. 2020; 13:33-45.
  5. Jeremias A, et al. Resting full-cycle ratio (RFR): a novel physiologic index compared to Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) in assessing the hemodynamic severity of a coronary stenosis: ILUMIEN I + PREDICT. EuroPCR 2018.
  6. Svanerud J, Ahn JM, Jeremias A, et al. Validation of a novel non-hyperaemic index of coronary artery stenosis severity: the Resting Full-cycle Ratio (VALIDATE RFR) study. EuroIntervention. 2018;14:806-814.
  7. Ahn JM, et al. IRIS FFR: prognostic performance of five resting pressure-derived indexes of coronary physiology. TCT 2018.
  8. Lee JM, Choi KH, Park J, et al. Physiological and clinical assessment of resting physiological indexes. Circulation. 2019;139.
  9. Kumar G, Desai R, Goreet A, et al. RE-VALIDATE: Real world validation of the non-hyperemic index of coronary artery stenosis severity: resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) - RE-VALIDATE RFR. CRT 2019.
  10. De Bruyne B, et al. Fractional flow reserve–guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(11), 991–1001. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1205361
  11. Corcoran F, Hennigan B, Berry C. Fractional flow reserve: a clinical perspective. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;33(7):961-974.
  12. Data on file at Abbott

MAT-2303968 v1.0