Reliability of Fractional Flow Reserve and Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio in Assessing Intermediate Coronary Stenosis in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

Author(s):  
Georgiana Pintea Bentea ◽  
Brahim Berdaoui ◽  
Sophie Samyn ◽  
Marielle Morissens ◽  
Jose Castro Rodriguez
Author(s):  
Giovanni Ciccarelli ◽  
Emanuele Barbato ◽  
Bernard De Bruyne

Fractional flow reserve is an index of the physiological significance of a coronary stenosis, defined as the ratio of maximal myocardial blood flow in the presence of the stenosis to the theoretically normal maximal myocardial blood flow (i.e. in the absence of the stenosis). This flow ratio can be calculated from the ratio of distal coronary pressure to central aortic pressure during maximal hyperaemia. More practically, fractional flow reserve indicates to what extent the epicardial segment can be responsible for myocardial ischaemia and, accordingly, fractional flow reserve quantifies the expected perfusion benefit from revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention. Very limited evidence exists on the role on fractional flow reserve for bypass grafts.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Ruitao Zhang ◽  
Jianwei Zhang ◽  
Lijun Guo

Background. Use of the fractional flow reserve (FFR) technique is recommended to evaluate coronary stenosis severity and guide revascularization. However, its high cost, time to administer, and the side effects of adenosine reduce its clinical utility. Two novel adenosine-free indices, contrast-FFR (cFFR) and quantitative flow ratio (QFR), can simplify the functional evaluation of coronary stenosis. This study aimed to analyze the diagnostic performance of cFFR and QFR using FFR as a reference index. Methods. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies in which cFFR or QFR was compared to FFR. A bivariate model was applied to pool diagnostic parameters. Cochran’s Q test and the I2 index were used to assess heterogeneity and identify the potential source of heterogeneity by metaregression and sensitivity analysis. Results. Overall, 2220 and 3000 coronary lesions from 20 studies were evaluated by cFFR and QFR, respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 (95% CI: 0.81, 0.91) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88, 0.94) for cFFR and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82, 0.91) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87, 0.93) for QFR, respectively. No statistical significance of sensitivity and specificity for cFFR and QFR were observed in the bivariate analysis (P=0.8406 and 0.4397, resp.). The area under summary receiver-operating curve of cFFR and QFR was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93, 0.97) for cFFR and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93, 0.97). Conclusion. Both cFFR and QFR have good diagnostic performance in detecting functional severity of coronary arteries and showed similar diagnostic parameters.


2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
K Hao ◽  
J Takahashi ◽  
A Suda ◽  
K Sato ◽  
J Sugisawa ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Vasospastic angina (VSA), which is one of the important functional cardiac disorders, may also play a role in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. Conversely, organic coronary stenosis is also known as an independent predictor for poor clinical outcomes in VSA patients. Although VSA patients have a variable degree of organic coronary stenosis in clinical setting, the functional importance of organic stenosis in those patients remains to be elucidated. Purpose The aim of this study was to examine the clinical importance and prognostic impact of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in patients with VSA and organic coronary stenosis. Methods We enrolled 236 consecutive patients with suspected vasospastic angina who underwent acetylcholine provocation test for coronary spasm (M/F 148/88, 63.6±12.0 [SD] yrs.). Among them, 175 patients (74.1%) were diagnosed as having VSA, while the remaining non-VSA patients were regarded as controls (Group-C, n=61). We divided the VSA patients into 3 groups based on angiographical findings and FFR values; VSA with no organic stenosis (>50% luminal stenosis) (Group-N, n=110), organic stenosis and high FFR (≥0.80) (Group-H, FFR 0.87±0.05, n=36), and organic stenosis and low FFR (<0.80) (Group-L, FFR 0.71±0.07, n=29). We evaluated the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including cardiovascular death (CVD), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), urgent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and hospitalization due to unstable angina pectoris (UAP) during the median follow-up period of 656 days. Results The groups with organic stenosis (Groups H and L) were characterized by higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus (Group-C/N/H/L, 23.0/20.9/44.4/34.5%, P=0.03) and dyslipidemia (Group-C/N/H/L, 37.7/39.1/50.0/65.5%, P=0.03) as compared with Group-C. After provocation test, all VSA patients received calcium channel blockers (CCBs). In addition, 20 days (median) after provocation test, 26 patients (92.9%) in Group-L underwent elective PCI with coronary stents, while no patient underwent PCI in Groups N or H. The incidence of MACE during follow-up was significantly higher in Group-L (Group-C/N/H/L; 1.6/3.6/5.6/27.6%, log-rank P<0.001), whereas clinical outcomes were comparable among the remaining 3 groups (Figure). Importantly, all 8 patients with MACE in Group-L had poor outcomes (CVD/MI/urgent PCI/UAP; 2/1/3/2) despite complete revascularization and the prevention of coronary spasm with CCBs, indicating that they might be resistant to standard contemporary therapies. They were characterized by less frequent use of angiotensin convert enzyme inhibitor (0 vs. 47.6%, P=0.02) and higher prevalence of multi-vessel organic lesions (37.5 vs. 4.8%, P=0.052) compared with those without MACE. Figure 1 Conclusions These results provide the first evidence that evaluation of coronary functional abnormalities with FFR is useful for making therapeutic strategies in VSA patients with organic coronary stenosis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document