Impact of Right Atrial Pressure on Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements

Is Coronary Physiology Assessment Valid in Special Circumstances?: Aortic Stenosis, Atrial Fibrillation, Left Ventricular Hypertrophy, and Other

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and nonhyperemic pressure ratios (NHPRs) provide an important clinical tool to evaluate the hemodynamic significance of coronary lesions. However, these indices have major limitations. As these indices are meant to be surrogates of coronary flow, clinical scenarios such as aortic stenosis (with increased end-systolic and end-diastolic pressures) or atrial fibrillation (with significant beat-to-beat cardiac output variability) can have significant effect on the accuracy and reliability of these hemodynamic indices. Here, we provide a comprehensive evaluation of the pitfalls, limitations, and strengths of FFR and NHPRs in common clinical scenarios paired with coronary artery disease.

Contemporary Use of Coronary Physiology in Cardiology

Coronary angiography has a limited ability to predict the functional significance of intermediate coronary lesions. Hence, physiological assessment of coronary lesions, via fractional flow reserve (FFR) or instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), has been introduced to determine their functional significance. An accumulating body of evidence has consolidated the role of physiology-guided revascularization, particularly among patients with stable ischemic heart disease. The use of FFR or iFR to guide decision-making in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and intermediate coronary lesions received a class I recommendation from major societal guidelines. Nevertheless, the role of coronary physiology testing is less clear among certain patients' groups, including patients with serial coronary lesions, acute coronary syndromes, aortic stenosis, heart failure, as well as post-percutaneous coronary interventions. In this review, we aimed to discuss the utility and clinical evidence of coronary physiology (mainly FFR and iFR), with emphasis on those specific patient groups.

Instantaneous wave free ratio vs. fractional flow reserve and 5-year mortality: iFR SWEDEHEART and DEFINE FLAIR

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Guidelines recommend revascularization of intermediate epicardial artery stenosis to be guided by evidence of ischaemia. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) are equally recommended. Individual 5-year results of two major randomized trials comparing FFR with iFR-guided revascularization suggested increased all-cause mortality following iFR-guided revascularization. The aim of this study was a study-level meta-analysis of the 5-year outcome data in iFR-SWEDEHEART (NCT02166736) and DEFINE-FLAIR (NCT02053038).

METHODS

Composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and its individual components [all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and unplanned revascularisation] were analysed. Raw Kaplan-Meier estimates, numbers at risk, and number of events were extracted at 5-year follow-up and analysed using the ipdfc package (Stata version 18, StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).

RESULTS

In total, iFR and FFR-guided revascularization was performed in 2254 and 2257 patients, respectively. Revascularization was more often deferred in the iFR group [n = 1128 (50.0%)] vs. the FFR group [n = 1021 (45.2%); P = .001]. In the iFR-guided group, the number of deaths, MACE, unplanned revascularization, and MI was 188 (8.3%), 484 (21.5%), 235 (10.4%), and 123 (5.5%) vs. 143 (6.3%), 420 (18.6%), 241 (10.7%), and 123 (5.4%) in the FFR group. Hazard ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)] estimates for MACE were 1.18 [1.04; 1.34], all-cause mortality 1.34 [1.08; 1.67], unplanned revascularization 0.99 [0.83; 1.19], and MI 1.02 [0.80; 1.32].

CONCLUSIONS

Five-year all-cause mortality and MACE rates were increased with revascularization guided by iFR compared to FFR. Rates of unplanned revascularization and MI were equal in the two groups.

Coronary Physiology: Modern Concepts for the Guidance of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions and Medical Therapy

Recent evidence on ischemia, rather than coronary artery disease (CAD), representing a major determinant of outcomes, has led to a progressive shift in the management of patients with ischemic heart disease. According to most recent guidelines, myocardial revascularization strategies based on anatomical findings should be progressively abandoned in favor of functional criteria for the guidance of PCI. Thus, emerging importance has been assigned to the assessment of coronary physiology in order to determine the ischemic significance of coronary stenoses. However, despite several indexes and tools that have been developed so far, the existence of technical and clinical conditions potentially biasing the functional evaluation of the coronary tree still cause debates regarding the strategy of choice. The present review provides an overview of the available methods and the most recent acquirements for the invasive assessment of ischemia, focusing on the most widely available indexes, fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instant-wave free ratio (iFR), in addition to emerging examples, as new approaches to coronary flow reserve (CFR) and microvascular resistance, aiming at promoting the knowledge and application of those "full physiology" principles, which are generally advocated to allow a tailored treatment and the achievement of the largest prognostic benefits.

Is Coronary Physiology Assessment Valid in Special Circumstances?: Aortic Stenosis, Atrial Fibrillation, Left Ventricular Hypertrophy, and Other

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and nonhyperemic pressure ratios (NHPRs) provide an important clinical tool to evaluate the hemodynamic significance of coronary lesions. However, these indices have major limitations. As these indices are meant to be surrogates of coronary flow, clinical scenarios such as aortic stenosis (with increased end-systolic and end-diastolic pressures) or atrial fibrillation (with significant beat-to-beat cardiac output variability) can have significant effect on the accuracy and reliability of these hemodynamic indices. Here, we provide a comprehensive evaluation of the pitfalls, limitations, and strengths of FFR and NHPRs in common clinical scenarios paired with coronary artery disease.

Diagnostic Performance of On-Site Computed Tomography Derived Fractional Flow Reserve on Non-Culprit Coronary Lesions in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

The role of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) in the assessment of non-culprit lesions (NCL) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is debated. In this prospective clinical study, a total of 68 ACS patients with 89 moderate (30−70% diameter stenosis) NCLs were enrolled to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of on-site CT-FFR compared to invasive fractional flow reserve (FFRi) and dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) as reference standards. CT-FFR and FFRi values ≤0.80, as well as new or worsening wall motion abnormality in ≥2 contiguous segments on the supplying area of an NCL on DSE, were considered positive for ischemia. Sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive value of CT-FFR relative to FFRi and DSE were 51%, 89%, 75%, and 74% and 37%, 77%, 42%, and 74%, respectively. CT-FFR value (β = 0.334, p < 0.001) and CT-FFR drop from proximal to distal measuring point [(CT-FFR drop), β = −0.289, p = 0.002)] were independent predictors of FFRi value in multivariate linear regression analysis. Based on comparing their receiver operating characteristics area under the curve (AUC) values, CT-FFR value and CT-FFR drop provided better discriminatory power than CCTA-based minimal lumen diameter stenosis to distinguish between an NCL with positive and negative FFRi [0.77 (95% Confidence Intervals, CI: 0.67−0.86) and 0.77 (CI: 0.67−0.86) vs. 0.63 (CI: 0.52−0.73), p = 0.029 and p = 0.043, respectively]. Neither CT-FFR value nor CT-FFR drop was predictive of regional wall motion score index at peak stress (β = −0.440, p = 0.441 and β = 0.403, p = 0.494) or was able to confirm ischemia on the territory of an NCL revealed by DSE (AUC = 0.54, CI: 0.43−0.64 and AUC = 0.55, CI: 0.44−0.65, respectively). In conclusion, on-site CT-FFR is superior to conventional CCTA-based anatomical analysis in the assessment of moderate NCLs; however, its diagnostic capacity is not sufficient to make it a gatekeeper to invasive functional evaluation. Moreover, based on its comparison with DSE, CT-FFR might not yield any information on the microvascular dysfunction in the territory of an NCL.

Coronary physiology in the catheterisation laboratory: an A to Z practical guide

Coronary revascularisation, either percutaneous or surgical, aims to improve coronary flow and relieve myocardial ischaemia. The decision-making process in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) remains largely based on invasive coronary angiography (ICA), even though until recently ICA could not assess the functional significance of coronary artery stenoses. Invasive wire-based approaches for physiological evaluations were developed to properly assess the ischaemic relevance of epicardial CAD. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and later, instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), were shown to improve clinical outcomes in several patient subsets when used for coronary revascularisation guidance or deferral and for procedural optimisation of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) results. Despite accumulating evidence and positive guideline recommendations, the adoption of invasive physiology has remained quite low, mainly due to technical and economic issues as well as to operator-resistance to change. Coronary image-based computational physiology has been recently developed, with promising results in terms of accuracy and a reduction in computational time, costs, radiation exposure and risks for the patient. Lastly, the integration of intracoronary imaging and physiology allows for individualised PCI treatment, aiming at complete relief of ischaemia through optimised morpho-functional immediate procedural results. Instead of a conventional state-of-the-art review, this A to Z dictionary attempts to provide a practical guide for the application of coronary physiology in the catheterisation laboratory, exploring several methods, their pitfalls, and useful tips and tricks.

Deferral of Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Reduced Ejection Fraction Based on Physiological Assessment: Impact on Long-Term Survival

Background Deferring revascularization in patients with nonsignificant stenoses based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) is associated with favorable clinical outcomes up to 15 years. Whether this holds true in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction is unclear. We aimed to investigate whether FFR provides adjunctive clinical benefit compared with coronary angiography in deferring revascularization of patients with intermediate coronary stenoses and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Methods and Results Consecutive patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (≤50%) undergoing coronary angiography between 2002 and 2010 were screened. We included patients with at least 1 intermediate coronary stenosis (diameter stenosis ≥40%) in whom revascularization was deferred based either on angiography plus FFR (FFR guided) or angiography alone (angiography guided). The primary end point was the cumulative incidence of all-cause death at 10 years. The secondary end point (incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events) was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, any revascularization, and stroke. A total of 840 patients were included (206 in the FFR-guided group and 634 in the angiography-guided group). Median follow-up was 7 years (interquartile range, 3.22-11.08 years). After 1:1 propensity-score matching, baseline characteristics between the 2 groups were similar. All-cause death was significantly lower in the FFR-guided group compared with the angiography-guided group (94 [45.6%] versus 119 [57.8%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.49-0.85]; P<0.01). The rate of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events was lower in the FFR-guided group (123 [59.7%] versus 139 [67.5%]; HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.59-0.95]; P=0.02). Conclusions In patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, deferring revascularization of intermediate coronary stenoses based on FFR is associated with a lower incidence of death and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events at 10 years.

Clinical use of physiological lesion assessment using pressure guidewires: an expert consensus document of the Japanese association of cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics-update 2022

Fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio are widely accepted and recommended in Western and Japanese guidelines for appropriate percutaneous coronary intervention. There are, however, many differences in clinical situations between Japan and Western countries. Therefore, the Task Force on coronary physiology of the Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics (CVIT) has proposed an expert consensus document to summarize current evidence and suggest the practical use of physiological lesion assessment in Japan.

The Role of Coronary Physiology in Contemporary Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

Invasive assessment of coronary physiology has radically changed the paradigm of myocardial revascularization in patients with coronary artery disease. Despite the prognostic improvement associated with ischemia-driven revascularization strategy, functional assessment of angiographic intermediate epicardial stenosis remains largely underused in clinical practice. Multiple tools have been developed or are under development in order to reduce the invasiveness, cost, and extra procedural time associated with the invasive assessment of coronary physiology. Besides epicardial stenosis, a growing body of evidence highlights the role of coronary microcirculation in regulating coronary flow with consequent pathophysiological and clinical and prognostic implications. Adequate assessment of coronary microcirculation function and integrity has then become another component of the decision-making algorithm for optimal diagnosis and treatment of coronary syndromes. This review aims at providing a comprehensive description of tools and techniques currently available in the catheterization laboratory to obtain a thorough and complete functional assessment of the entire coronary tree (both for the epicardial and microvascular compartments).

Fractional Flow Reserve: Patient Selection and Perspectives

The aim of this review was to discuss the current practice and patient selection for invasive FFR, new techniques to estimate invasive FFR and future of coronary physiology tests. We elaborate on the indication and application of FFR and on the contraindications and concerns in certain patient populations.

Fractional flow reserve in patients with reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has never been investigated in patients with reduced ejection fraction and associated coronary artery disease (CAD). We evaluated the impact of FFR on the management strategies of these patients and related outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

From 2002 to 2010, all consecutive patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤50% undergoing coronary angiography with ≥1 intermediate coronary stenosis [diameter stenosis (DS)% 50-70%] treated based on angiography (Angiography-guided group) or according to FFR (FFR-guided group) were screened for inclusion. In the FFR-guided group, 433 patients were matched with 866 contemporary patients of the Angiography-guided group. For outcome comparison, 617 control patients with LVEF >50% were included. After FFR, stenotic vessels per patient were significantly downgraded compared with the Angiography-guided group (1.43 ± 0.98 vs. 1.97 ± 0.84; P < 0.001). This was associated with lower revascularization rate (52% vs. 62%; P < 0.001) in the FFR-guided vs. the Angiography-guided group. All-cause death at 5 years of follow-up was significantly lower in the FFR-guided as compared with Angiography-guided group [22% vs. 31%. HR (95% CI) 0.64 (0.51-0.81); P < 0.001]. Similarly, rate of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE: composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and stroke) was significantly lower in the FFR-guided group [40% vs. 46% in the Angiography-guided group. HR (95% CI) 0.81 (0.67-0.97); P = 0.019]. Higher rates of death and MACCE were observed in patients with reduced LVEF compared with the control cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with reduced LVEF and CAD, FFR-guided revascularization was associated with lower rates of death and MACCE at 5 years as compared with the Angiography-guided strategy. This beneficial impact was observed in parallel with less coronary artery bypass grafting and more patients deferred to percutaneous coronary intervention or medical therapy.

Physiology-Based Revascularization of Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

It is of critical importance to correctly assess the significance of a left main lesion. Underestimation of significance beholds the risk of inappropriate deferral of revascularization, whereas overestimation may trigger major but unnecessary interventions. This article addresses the invasive physiological assessment of left main disease and its role in deciding upon revascularization. It mainly focuses on the available evidence for fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio, their interpretation, and limitations. We also discuss alternative invasive physiological indices and imaging, as well as the link between physiology, ischemia, and prognosis.

Utility and Validity of Intracoronary Administration of Nicorandil Alone for the Measurement of Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Intermediate Coronary Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Intracoronary (IC) administration of nicorandil has been proposed as an alternative choice of hyperemic agent for fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements. This study evaluated the utility and validity of IC nicorandil administration alone to induce maximal hyperemia.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two-hundred-seven patients with coronary artery disease listed for coronary angiography with FFR were prospectively enrolled. FFR was measured after (1) IC administration of nicorandil 2 mg (ICNIC2 mg); (2) continuous intravenous (IV) adenosine triphosphatase (ATP) infusion at 150 μg/kg/min (IVATP150); (3) IV ATP infusion at 210 μg/kg/min (IVATP210); (4) IC administration of 0.5 mg nicorandil during IVATP150 (ICNIC0.5 mg+IVATP150); (5) IC administration of 1 mg nicorandil during IVATP150 (ICNIC1 mg+IVATP150); and (6) IC administration of 2 mg nicorandil during IVATP150 (ICNIC2 mg+IVATP150). The average FFR values and the rate of achieving maximum hyperemia after ICNIC2 mg, IVATP150, IVATP210, ICNIC0.5 mg+IVATP150, ICNIC1 mg+IVATP150, and ICNIC2 mg+IVATP150 were 0.85±0.08, 0.89±0.08, 0.85±0.09, 0.84±0.08, 0.83±0.08, 0.83±0.08 (P<0.01), and 92%, 54%, 91%, 96%, 99%, 99% (P<0.01), respectively. The incidence of systolic aortic pressure drop, chest discomfort, and transient atrioventricular block increased in a dose-dependent manner after IV ATP infusion, but almost no adverse effects were observed after ICNIC2 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

ICNIC2 mg produced a more pronounced hyperemia than continuous IV ATP, and might be the preferred method for assessment of FFR.

Technical aspects and limitations of fractional flow reserve measurement

BACKGROUND

The only indication for coronary revascularization is elimination of ischaemia. Invasive hemodynamic methods (fractional flow reserve - FFR and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) are superior to coronary angiography in detection of lesions causing myocardial ischaemia. Current European guidelines for myocardial revascularization recommend using of FFR for detection of functional assessment of lesions severity in category IA and number of these procedures increases. However, routine usage of these methods requires knowledge of technical requirements and limitations.

AIM

The aim of the study is to summarise good clinical practice for FFR and iFR measurements with explanation of possible technical challenges, that are necessary for increasing of measurement accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

Authors describe frequent technical mistakes and malpractice during invasive assessment of lesion severity in coronary arteries.

Clinical use of physiological lesion assessment using pressure guidewires: an expert consensus document of the Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics

In this document, the background, concept, and current evidence are briefly summarized. The focus is on the clinical application of physiological lesion assessment from a practical standpoint for facilities that do not have ample experience. Finally, the characteristics of new resting indexes are summarized.

Comparison of coronary angiography and intracoronary imaging with fractional flow reserve for coronary artery disease evaluation: An anatomical-functional mismatch

Myocardial ischemia is a leading cause of death worldwide, and it corresponds to the imbalance between blood supply and myocardial demand. Epicardial coronary artery disease (CAD) is detected on the basis of coronary angiogram, whereas invasive detection of myocardial ischemia induced by coronary stenosis is commonly based on fractional flow reserve (FFR). The use of FFR for revascularization decision-making demonstrated clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness compared with that of angiographic indices. Discrepancies between anatomical metrics and physiological assessment of CAD are frequent, which lead to change in revascularization decision from angiography compared to functional evaluation of CAD. Despite several clinical studies and guidelines recommending with high level of evidence demonstrating that FFR should be adopted in stable CAD, revascularization decision-making is still based on coronary angiogram in current practice. Because of the unique coronary anatomy, coronary stenosis characteristics, risk factors profile, and microcirculation quality, the unique evaluation based on epicardial coronary stenosis threshold failed to be a landmark of ischemia compared with FFR. Furthermore, coronary angiogram can detect only epicardial vessels, which represent only 10% of the entire coronary vasculature; therefore, microcirculation is not seen and is poorly assessed in clinical practice. Thus, the role of microcirculation is of importance in myocardial ischemia and might impact these discrepancies between angiography and FFR evaluation of CAD. In this review, we aimed to describe the poor correlation between anatomical evaluation compared with physiological evaluation to detect myocardial ischemia induced by coronary stenosis as well as the clinical implications of this visual-functional mismatch.

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) as a guide to treat coronary artery disease

INTRODUCTION

The presence and extent of myocardial ischemia are the major determinants of prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Unlike coronary angiography alone, fractional flow reserve (FFR) has enabled interventional cardiologists to accurately determine whether coronary atherosclerotic plaques are responsible for myocardial ischemia, and therefore deserve to be revascularized. Areas covered: An overview on the role of FFR in the diagnosis and treatment of coronary artery disease, as well as the potential related controversies is provided. Authors describe the coronary physiology underneath this technique and all the procedural aspects in the catheterization laboratory. The landmark trials and the current applications in different coronary lesions and syndromes are also described and potential future research involving FFR and comparisons with other methodologies for the evaluation of coronary physiology are introduced. Expert commentary: FFR is still unsurpassed in diagnostic performance when compared to non-hyperemic indices and noninvasive techniques, and remains the gold standard for the detection of ischemia-inducing coronary stenoses. FFR-guided PCI has been demonstrated superior to an angiography-guided PCI and over medical therapy alone, and ongoing investigation will clarify whether it could perform better, or at least equalize the results of cardiac surgery in patients with severe multivessel disease.

Pressure wire versus microcatheter for FFR measurement: a head-to-head comparison

AIMS

Recently developed microcatheters can be used instead of a pressure wire for fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement. We sought to assess the haemodynamic and clinical impact of using a larger profile device to measure FFR.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Our prospective registry included 77 consecutive patients who underwent invasive FFR measurement of intermediate coronary stenoses between June 2015 and July 2016. FFR values were obtained first using a pressure wire only (FFRw), second using a Navvus microcatheter (FFRMC), and finally using the wire with the microcatheter still in the stenosis (FFRw-MC) during intravenous adenosine infusion. Eighty-eight stenoses were suitable for a thorough head-to-head comparison. Mean FFRw (0.83±0.08) was significantly higher than mean FFRMC (0.80±0.10) and FFRw-MC (0.80±0.10). Mean FFRMC and FFRw-MC did not differ significantly. Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias of -0.03±0.05 for lower FFRMC values compared to FFRw values. Using a threshold of 0.80 for FFR, the indication for revascularisation would have differed when based on FFRMC versus FFRw in 20/88 (23%) of the lesions and 18/77 (23%) of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

FFR measured using a microcatheter overestimates stenosis severity, leading to erroneous indication for revascularisation in a sizeable proportion of cases.

Assessing Coronary Blood Flow Physiology in the Cardiac Catheterisation Laboratory

Background:

Contemporary management of coronary disease focuses on the treatment of stenoses in the major epicardial vessels. However, myocardial blood flow is known to be contingent on a range of factors in addition to the patency of the epicardial vessels. These include anatomical and physiological factors such as the extent of myocardium supplied by the vessel, systemic blood pres-sure, the natural variation in vascular tone in response to physiological needs which allows for coro-nary autoregulation and pathological factors such as the presence of downstream obstruction to flow due to disease of the small coronary vessels or myocardium. The assessment of clinical effectiveness and adequacy of coronary revascularisation requires the ability to comprehensively and accurately as-sess and measure myocardial perfusion.

Conclusion:

In this article, we review the current methods of evaluating coronary blood flow and my-ocardial perfusion in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory.

A Practical Guide for Fractional Flow Reserve Guided Revascularisation

The presence and extent of myocardial ischaemia is a major determinant of prognosis and benefit from revascularisation in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) is accepted as the reference standard for invasive assessment of ischaemia. Its ability to detect lesion specific ischaemia makes it a useful test in a wide range of patient and lesion subsets, with FFR guided intervention improving clinical outcomes and reducing health care costs compared to assessment with coronary angiography alone. This article will review the basic principles in FFR, practical tips in FFR guided revascularisation and the role of emerging non-hyperaemic indices of ischaemia.

Fractional flow reserve and resting indices for coronary physiologic assessment: Practical guide, tips, and tricks

Physiologic assessment using fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) has been demonstrated to improve clinical outcomes, compared to angiography-guided PCI. Recently, resting indices such as resting Pd/Pa, "instantaneous wave-free ratio", and contrast medium induced FFR have been evaluated for the assessment of the functional consequences of coronary lesions. Herein, we review and discuss the use of FFR and other indices for the functional assessment of coronary lesions. This review will cover theoretical aspects, as well as practical points and common pitfalls related to coronary physiological assessment. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Coronary Collaterals Function and Clinical Outcome Between Patients With Acute and Chronic Total Occlusion

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to demonstrate how changes in the collateral function and its clinical significance before and after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) are compared between patients with acute coronary syndrome and total or nearly total occlusions (ATOs) and chronic total occlusions (CTOs).

BACKGROUND

The functional relevance of the collateral circulation in patients with ATOs and CTOs has not been fully investigated.

METHODS

The pressure-derived collateral pressure index (CPI), myocardial fractional flow reserve (FFRmyo), and coronary fractional flow reserve (FFRcor) at maximum hyperemia induced by intravenous adenosine were evaluated in occluded vessels at baseline, after the PCI, and at 1 year in 23 ATO and 74 CTO patients.

RESULTS

The FFRmyo and FFRcor were significantly lower, but the CPI was significantly higher in the CTO than ATO patients at baseline and after the PCI. There were significant increases in the FFRmyo (p < 0.001) and FFRcor (p < 0.001), whereas there was no significant change in the CPI immediately after the PCI in both ATO and CTO patients. In the CTO patients, a post-PCI FFRmyo <0.90 (p = 0.01) and post-PCI CPI <0.25 (p = 0.033) were independent predictors of the clinical outcome. Patients with a high post-PCI CPI had better clinical outcomes in CTO patients with a low post-PCI FFRmyo (log-rank p = 0.009), but not a high post-PCI FFRmyo (log-rank p = 0.492).

CONCLUSIONS

Recruitable coronary collateral flow did not regress completely immediately after the PCI both in patients with ATOs and CTOs. Despite good collaterals in CTO patients, aggressive efforts to reduce the ischemic burden might improve the clinical outcome.

The Evolving Future of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve

In this review, the authors reflect upon the role of coronary physiology in the modern management of coronary artery disease. They critically appraise the scientific background of the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR), from early experimental studies to validation studies against indexes of ischemia, to clinical trials assessing outcome. At this important juncture for the field, the authors make predictions for the future of physiological stenosis assessment, outlining developments for both iFR and FFR in new clinical domains beyond the confines of stable angina. With a focus on the evolving future of iFR and FFR, the authors describe how physiological assessment with iFR may advance its application from simply justifying to guiding revascularization.

Correlation between Angiographic and Physiologic Evaluation of Coronary Artery Narrowings in Patients With Aortic Valve Stenosis

We aimed to assess the correlation between angiographic and physiologic evaluation of coronary lesions in aortic stenosis (AS) patients presenting with intermediate coronary stenoses at the angiography. From 2002 to 2010, we included 163 patients from 2 centers with both AS and coronary artery disease (CAD), matched by age and gender with 163 contemporary patients with CAD alone. With both quantitative coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve (FFR), we assessed 259 coronary stenoses in the AS + CAD group, and 256 in the CAD alone group. A significant correlation was found between diameter stenosis (DS) and FFR in both groups, although this was significantly stronger in the AS + CAD than in the CAD alone group (R = -0.63 vs -0.44, p <0.01). Likewise, the correlation between minimum lumen diameter and FFR was stronger in the AS + CAD than in the CAD alone group (R = -0.54 vs -0.41, p = 0.05). Receiver operator characteristic curves analysis showed that DS was a better predictor of hemodynamically significant coronary stenoses (FFR ≤0.8) in the AS + CAD rather than in the CAD alone group (area under the curve = 0.83 vs 0.67, p <0.01). With 50% DS cut-off value, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy was 77%, 66%, and 70% in the AS + CAD group versus 59%, 63%, and 61% in the CAD alone group. In both groups, the diagnostic accuracy of DS in predicting FFR was higher in the right and circumflex coronary artery compared with the left anterior descending artery (LAD), although this was only statistically significant in the AS + CAD group (area under the curve 0.88 in the right and circumflex coronary artery vs 0.76 in LAD, p = 0.03). In conclusion, the correlation between the angiographic and hemodynamic significance of coronary stenoses is modest in AS patients. The assessment of CAD severity solely based on angiography poorly predicts the hemodynamic significance of the coronary stenosis especially when these are located in the LAD.

Standardization of Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements

Pressure wire-based fractional flow reserve is considered the standard of reference for evaluation of the ischemic potential of coronary stenoses and the expected benefit from revascularization. Accordingly, its application in daily practice or for research purposes has to be as standardized as possible to avoid technical or operator-related artifacts in pressure recordings. This document proposes a standardized way of acquiring, recording, interpreting, and archiving the pressure tracings for daily practice and for the purpose of clinical research involving a core laboratory. Proposed standardized steps enhance the uniformity of clinical practices and data interpretation.

Fractional flow reserve: a clinical perspective

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is a reference invasive diagnostic test to assess the physiological significance of an epicardial coronary artery stenosis. FFR-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in stable coronary artery disease has been assessed in three seminal clinical trials and the indications for FFR assessment are expanding into other clinical scenarios. In this article we review the theoretical, experimental and clinical basis for FFR measurement. We place FFR measurement in the context of the comprehensive invasive assessment of coronary physiology in patients presenting with known or suspected angina pectoris in daily clinical practice, and review the recent developments in FFR assessment.

Fractional flow reserve to guide surgical coronary revascularization

Coronary angiography has traditionally been used as the final diagnostic tool in the evaluation of coronary artery disease (CAD). However, conventional angiography identifies anatomically obstructive coronary disease, but it is limited in its ability to identify hemodynamically significant lesions. The emergence of fractional flow reserve (FFR) technology, in conjunction with angiography, offers a functional, as well as anatomic, assessment of epicardial coronary obstructions. Several pivotal studies have demonstrated that FFR-guided coronary revascularization is a safe and effective in patients with single and multivessel CAD. There are emerging data to suggest that FFR may also play an integral role in planning surgical revascularization and in the evaluation of post-coronary artery bypass patients and their graft patency. This review will explore the physiologic underpinnings of FFR methodology, its clinical value and limitations, and its applications in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery.

Efficacy of intravenous nicorandil for fractional flow reserve assessment: study protocol for a crossover randomised trial

INTRODUCTION

Nicorandil has vasodilatory effects on both the epicardial coronary arteries and the coronary microvasculature, thereby increasing coronary blood flow. Intravenous administration of nicorandil can be applicable for fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement as a hyperaemic agent and a possible alternative to adenosine. However, the effectiveness of intravenous nicorandil infusion for FFR measurement is largely unclear.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This crossover randomised study is being performed to investigate the efficacy of intravenous administration of nicorandil for FFR measurement. Patients with an intermediate coronary artery stenosis who satisfy the eligibility criteria undergo FFR measurement with a consecutive randomised order of patient-blind infusions of continuous intravenous administration of adenosine and a single bolus intravenous administration of nicorandil. The primary end point of the study is the agreement between the FFR values obtained by the intravenous nicorandil and those obtained by the intravenous adenosine. Recruitment of this trial started in November 2015 and will end in March 2017, or until a total of 50 participants have been recruited.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Chiba University Hospital. Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000019309; Pre-results.

Functional Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Background—

Aortic valve stenosis may influence fractional flow reserve (FFR) of concomitant coronary artery disease by causing hypertrophy and reducing the vasodilatory reserve of the coronary circulation. We sought to investigate whether FFR values might change after valve replacement.

Methods and Results—

The functional relevance of 133 coronary lesions was assessed by FFR in 54 patients with severe aortic valve stenosis before and after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) during the same procedure. A linear mixed model was used to verify the interaction of TAVI effect with the FFR values. No significant overall change in FFR values was found before and after the aortic valve stenosis removal (0.89±0.10 versus 0.89±0.13; P =0.73). A different trend in FFR groups (positive if ≤0.8; negative if >0.8) was found after TAVI ( P for interaction <0.001). Positive FFR values worsened after TAVI (0.71±0.11 versus 0.66±0.14). Conversely, negative FFR values improved after TAVI (0.92±0.06 versus 0.93±0.07). Similarly, FFR values in coronary arteries with lesions presenting percent diameter stenosis >50 worsened after TAVI (0.84±0.12 versus 0.82±0.16; P =0.02), whereas FFR values in arteries with mild lesions (percent diameter stenosis <50) tended toward improvement after TAVI (0.90±0.07 versus 0.91±0.09; P =0.69). Functional FFR variations after TAVI changed the indication to treat the coronary stenosis in 8 of 133 (6%) lesions.

Conclusions—

Coronary hemodynamics are influenced by aortic valve stenosis removal. Nevertheless, FFR variations after TAVI are minor and crossed the diagnostic cutoff of 0.8 in a small number of patients after valve replacement. Borderline coronary lesions might become functionally significant after valve replacement, although FFR-guided interventions were infrequent even in patients with angiographically significant lesions.

[Measurement of fractional flow reserve in patients with severe aortic stenosis: A valid test?]

A 54-year-old woman was hospitalized for an acute pulmonary oedema revealing a severe aortic stenosis (AS) associated with an aortic aneurysm and a left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). The coronary angiography found an equivocal left main lesion. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) showed hemodynamic significance (FFR=0.78) and optical coherence tomography confirmed this result with a minimal lumen area of 4.9mm². FFR-guided percutaneous intervention is reported to improve outcome in patients with stable coronary disease. However, only few data are available in cases of AS. In this condition, secondary LVH is associated with microcirculatory dysfunction, which interferes with optimal hyperemia. An elevated right atrial pressure could also modify FFR measurement. This risk of underestimation of a coronary lesion in patients with severe AS has to be taken into consideration in clinical practice.

The FAME Trials: Impact on Clinical Decision Making

Careful and stepwise evaluation of the fractional flow reserve (FFR) index has been performed over the years, culminating in the landmark Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) and Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Plus Optimal Medical Treatment Versus Optimal Medical Treatment Alone in Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease (FAME II) trials. Findings from these studies demonstrated unequivocally the overall inadequacy of angiography versus FFR to correctly assess stenosis severity. Thus, proof of concept and clinical applicability was established beyond debate and will be discussed here.