The association between the extent of lipidic burden and delta-fractional flow reserve: analysis from coronary physiological and near-infrared spectroscopic measures

Abstract Background In addition to fractional flow reserve (FFR), resting indexes (RI) have been shown as another physiological measure to evaluate myocardial ischemia. Despite the clinical usefulness of RI without the use of intravenous vasodilatory agent, discrepancy between FFR and RI infrequently occurs. Whether this physiological mismatch is derived by specific plaque feature remains unknown. Purpose To characterize coronary plaques associated with coronary physiological mismatch. Methods We analyzed 59 coronary arteries (LAD/RCA/LCX=49/4/6) with FFR≤0.80 in 57 stable CAD subjects receiving PCI. Following measurement of FFR and RI, culprit lesion was evaluated by near-infrared spectroscopy and intravascular ultrasound (NIRS/IVUS). The analyzed vessels were stratified according to FFR and RI values: FFR≤0.75+RI>0.89 (n=6: physiological mismatch), FFR>0.75+RI>0.89 (n=6), FFR≤0.75+RI≤0.89 (n=33) and FFR>0.75+RI≤0.89 (n=14). Results The median values of percent diameter stenosis, FFR and RI were 51%, 0.75 and 0.87, respectively. Physiological mismatch was observed in 10.1% (=6/59) of analyzed vessels. On IVUS imaging, maximum percent plaque area was greater than 70% in all groups (p=0.29). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in angiographic and IVUS-derived minimum lumen area across 4 groups (Table). However, culprit lesions exhibiting physiological mismatch contained a substantially larger amount of lipid plaque, reflected by a higher maximum 4-mm lipid-core burned index (maxLCBI4mm: p=0.04) on NIRS imaging (Table). Multivariate analysis demonstrated maxLCBI4mm as the only plaque feature associated with physiological mismatch (odds ratio=1.010, 95% CI: 1.001–1.019, p=0.02). Conclusion Plaque feature associated with coronary physiological mismatch was the extent of lipidic materials but not the quantity of coronary atheroma. Since the accumulation of lipidic plaque component is caused by endothelial dysfunction, this vascular substrate could impair baseline vasomotion, thereby causing a lower FFR despite preserved RI value. Evaluation of lipidic burden may be a potential option to avoid unnecessary deferral of revascularization in subjects with normal RI value. maxLCBI4mm in each group Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Download Full-text

P2232 Outcomes of multivessel patients with one vessel deferred on the basis of fractional flow reserve measurements

European Heart Journal ◽

10.1016/s0195-668x(03)95226-2 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 24 (5) ◽

pp. 425

Author(s):

A BERGER

Keyword(s):

Fractional Flow Reserve ◽

Fractional Flow ◽

Flow Reserve

Download Full-text

Fractional Flow Reserve: Does a Cut-off Value add Value?

Interventional Cardiology Review ◽

10.15420/icr.2016.11.01.17 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

pp. 17

Author(s):

Shah R Mohdnazri ◽

◽

Thomas R Keeble ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Fractional Flow Reserve ◽

Coronary Intervention ◽

Grey Zone ◽

Fractional Flow ◽

Non Invasive ◽

Invasive Test ◽

Flow Reserve ◽

A Value ◽

Percutaneous Coronary ◽

Value Add

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has been shown to improve outcomes when used to guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There have been two proposed cut-off points for FFR. The first was derived by comparing FFR against a series of non-invasive tests, with a value of ≤0.75 shown to predict a positive ischaemia test. It was then shown in the DEFER study that a vessel FFR value of ≥0.75 was associated with safe deferral of PCI. During the validation phase, a ‘grey zone’ for FFR values of between 0.76 and 0.80 was demonstrated, where a positive non-invasive test may still occur, but sensitivity and specificity were sub-optimal. Clinical judgement was therefore advised for values in this range. The FAME studies then moved the FFR cut-off point to ≤0.80, with a view to predicting outcomes. The ≤0.80 cut-off point has been adopted into clinical practice guidelines, whereas the lower value of ≤0.75 is no longer widely used. Here, the authors discuss the data underpinning these cut-off values and the practical implications for their use when using FFR guidance in PCI.

Download Full-text