Visualization of the improvement of myocardial perfusion after coronary intervention using motorized fractional flow reserve pullback curve

Consensus document on the clinical application of invasive functional coronary angiography from the Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics

Invasive functional coronary angiography (FCA), an angiography-derived physiological index of the functional significance of coronary obstruction, is a novel physiological assessment tool for coronary obstruction that does not require the utilization of a pressure wire. This technology enables operators to rapidly evaluate the functional relevance of coronary stenoses during and even after angiography while reducing the burden of cost and complication risks related to the pressure wire. FCA can be used for treatment decision-making for revascularization, strategy planning for percutaneous coronary intervention, and procedure optimization. Currently, various software-computing FCAs are available worldwide, with unique features in their computation algorithms and functions. With the emerging application of this novel technology in various clinical scenarios, the Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics task force was created to outline expert consensus on the clinical use of FCA. This consensus document advocates optimal clinical applications of FCA according to currently available evidence while summarizing the concept, history, limitations, and future perspectives of FCA along with globally available software.

Applied coronary physiology for planning and guidance of percutaneous coronary interventions. A clinical consensus statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) of the European Society of Cardiology

The clinical value of fractional flow reserve and non-hyperaemic pressure ratios are well established in determining an indication for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). In addition, over the last 5 years we have witnessed a shift towards the use of physiology to enhance procedural planning, assess post-PCI functional results, and guide PCI optimisation. In this regard, clinical studies have reported compelling data supporting the use of longitudinal vessel analysis, obtained with pressure guidewire pullbacks, to better understand how obstructive CAD contributes to myocardial ischaemia, to establish the likelihood of functionally successful PCI, to identify the presence and location of residual flow-limiting stenoses and to predict long-term outcomes. The introduction of new functional coronary angiography tools, which merge angiographic information with fluid dynamic equations to deliver information equivalent to intracoronary pressure measurements, are now available and potentially also applicable to these endeavours. Furthermore, the ability of longitudinal vessel analysis to predict the functional results of stenting has played an integral role in the evolving field of simulated PCI. Nevertheless, it is important to have an awareness of the value and challenges of physiology-guided PCI in specific clinical and anatomical contexts. The main aim of this European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions clinical consensus statement is to offer up-to-date evidence and expert opinion on the use of applied coronary physiology for procedural PCI planning, disease pattern recognition and post-PCI optimisation.

Development, validation, and reproducibility of the pullback pressure gradient (PPG) derived from manual fractional flow reserve pullbacks

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) pullbacks assess the location and magnitude of pressure drops along the coronary artery. The pullback pressure gradient (PPG) quantifies the FFR pullback curve and provides a numeric expression of focal versus diffuse coronary artery disease. This study aims (1) to validate the PPG using manual FFR pullbacks compared with motorized FFR pullbacks as a reference; and (2) to determine the intra- and interoperator reproducibility of the PPG derived from manual FFR pullbacks. Patients with stable coronary artery disease and an FFR ≤ 0.80 were included. All patients underwent FFR pullback evaluation either with a motorized device or manually, depending on the study cohort. The agreement of the PPG between repeated pullbacks was assessed using the Bland-Altman method. Overall, 116 FFR pullback maneuvers (96 manual and 20 motorized) were analyzed. There was excellent agreement between the PPG derived from manual and motorized pullbacks (mean difference -0.01 ± 0.07, 95% limits of agreement [LOA] -0.14 to 0.12). The intra- and interoperator reproducibility of PPG derived from manual pullbacks were excellent (mean difference <0.01, 95% LOA -0.11 to 0.12, and mean difference <0.01, 95% LOA -0.12 to 0.11, respectively). The duration of the pullback maneuver did not impact the reproducibility of the PPG (r = 0.12, 95% CI: -0.29 to 0.49, p = 0.567). Manual pullbacks allow for an accurate PPG calculation. The inter- and intraoperator reproducibility of PPG derived from manual pullbacks were excellent.

Value of Delta Fractional Flow Reserve (ΔFFR) For Predicting Coronary Ischemic Lesions

Background:

The decrease in fractional flow reserve (FFR) after adenosine administration from baseline FFR value (termed as ΔFFR) may reflect the compensatory capacity of the microvascular circulation and thus may predict significant coronary stenotic lesions. We aimed to investigate whether baseline FFR and ΔFFR can help identify the coronary ischemic lesion and its severity.

Materials and Methods:

This cross-sectional study was performed on 154 consecutive patients (Mean age 62.42 ± 9.36 years) that underwent coronary angiography and with definitive intermediate coronary lesions at any of the coronary vessels. FFR was calculated by dividing the mean distal intracoronary pressure by the mean arterial pressure. ΔFFR was also defined as the difference between baseline FFR and hyperemic FFR (considering FFR<0.75 as the criteria for ischemia).

Results:

The area under receiver-operating characteristic curve for baseline FFR was found as 0.933, and for ΔFFR was 0.946 indicated high values of both indices for predicting ischemic lesions. The best cut-off point for baseline FFR and ΔFFR for discriminating ischemic lesions from the normal condition was 89.5 (yielding a sensitivity of 92.2% and a specificity of 68.0%) and 9.5 (yielding a sensitivity of 96.0% and a specificity of 85.3%), respectively.

Conclusion:

Our study could successfully demonstrate the high value of both baseline FFR and ΔFFR for predicting coronary ischemic lesions with the cut-off values of <89.5 and >9.5, respectively.

Utility of angiography-physiology coregistration maps during percutaneous coronary intervention in clinical practice

This study aimed to evaluate the utility and feasibility of physiological maps coregistered with angiograms using the pullback of a pressure guidewire with continuous instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) measurements. iFR pullback was obtained for 70 lesions from 70 patients with stable angina pectoris using SyncVision (Philips Corp.). Physiological maps were created, whereby the post-intervention iFR (post-iFR) was predicted as iFRpred. The iFR gap was defined if the difference between the iFRpred and post-iFR was ≥ 0.3. The lesion morphology changed from that during the physiological assessment to that during the angiographic assessment in 26 lesions (37.1%). In particular, 22.6% of angiographic tandem lesions changed to physiological focal lesions. The mean pre-intervention iFR, post-iFR, and iFRpred were 0.73 ± 0.17, 0.90 ± 0.06, and 0.93 ± 0.05, respectively. The mean difference between the iFRpred and post-iFR was 0.029 ± 0.099, with 95% limits of agreement of -0.070–0.128. iFR gaps occurred in 28 patients (40%). Notably, a new iFR gradient causing a ≥ 0.03 iFR drop after stenting occurred in 11 (15.7%) cases. The study patients were divided into two groups according to biases between post-iFR and iFRpred < 0.03 (good concordance group) or ≥ 0.03 (poor concordance group). The pre-intervention heart rate was the only independent predictor of poor concordance (odds ratio, 0.936; 95% confidence interval 0.883–0.992; p = 0.027). Physiological maps under resting conditions may contribute to a reduction in unnecessary stent placements without missing lesions requiring treatment. However, the predictive accuracy of post-iFR performance in the present study was slightly lower than that in the previous reports.

Inter-observer differences in interpretation of coronary pressure-wire pullback data by non-expert interventional cardiologists

The physiological pattern of coronary artery disease as determined by pressure-wire (PW)-pullback is important for decision-making of revascularization and risk stratification of patients. However, it remains unclear whether inter-observer differences in interpreting PW-pullback data are subject to the expertise of physicians. This study sought to investigate the subjectivity of this assessment among non-experts. Expert interventional cardiologists classified 545 PW-pullback traces into physiologically focal or physiologically diffuse disease pattern. Defining expert-consensus as the reference standard, we evaluated ten non-expert doctors' classification performance. Observers were stratified equally by two ways: (i) years of experience as interventional cardiologists (middle-level vs. junior-level) and (ii) volume of institutions where they belonged to (high-volume center vs. low-volume center). When judged against the expert-consensus, the agreement of non-expert observers in assessing physiological pattern of disease (focal or diffuse) ranged from 69.1 to 85.0% (p for heterogeneity < 0.0001). There was no evidence for a moderating effect of years of experience; the pooled accuracy of middle-level doctors was 78.8% (95% confidential interval [CI] 72.8-84.7%) vs. 79.1% for junior-level doctors (95% CI 75.9-82.2%, p = 0.95 for difference). On the other hand, we observed a significant moderating effect of center volume. Accuracy across non-experts in high-volume centers was 82.7% (95% CI 80.3-85.1%) vs. 75.1% for low-volume centers (95% CI 71.9-78.3%, p = 0.0002 for difference). Interpretation of PW-pullback by non-expert interventional cardiologists was considerably subjective.