In vivo validation of resting full-cycle ratio and diastolic pressure ratio: simultaneous measurement with instantaneous wave-free ratio

Comparative study of fractional flow reserve and diastolic pressure ratio using a guidewire with a sensor for measuring intravascular pressure

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the correlation and diagnostic agreement between diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) in a Japanese real-world setting.

DESIGN

Prospective multicenter observational study.

METHODS

This study included 100 patients with intermediate coronary artery stenosis at 4 Japanese hospitals. For these lesions, FFR and dPR were measured using a guidewire with a sensor and a monitor to measure intravascular pressure. The correlation and diagnostic agreement between FFR and dPR were assessed. When both FFR and dPR were negative or positive, the results were considered to be concordant. When one was positive and the other was negative, the result was regarded as discordant (positive discordance, FFR > 0.80 and dPR ≤ 0.89; negative discordance, FFR ≤ 0.80 and dPR > 0.89).

RESULTS

Overall, the FFR and dPR were well-correlated (R = 0.841). FFR and dPR were concordant in 89% of cases (concordant normal, 43%; concordant abnormal, 46%) and discordant in 11% (positive discordance, 7%; negative discordance, 4%). No significant difference was observed in the rate of concordant results between patients with and without diabetes mellitus. The diagnostic concordance rate was significantly different among the 3 coronary arteries (right coronary artery, 93.3%; left anterior descending artery, 93.2%; and left circumflex artery, 58.3%; P = .001). Additionally, the rate of concordant results tended to be higher when using intravenous administration of adenosine than when using intracoronary bolus injection of nicorandil (adenosine, 95.1%; nicorandil, 84.7%; P = .103).

CONCLUSION

We found that dPR was highly correlated with FFR, and diagnostic discordance was observed in 11% of the lesions. Several factors, including lesion location and medication for hyperemia, may cause the diagnostic discordance between dPR and FFR.

Usefulness of the Hybrid RFR-FFR Approach: Results of a Prospective and Multicenter Analysis of Diagnostic Agreement between RFR and FFR-The RECOPA (REsting Full-Cycle Ratio Comparation versus Fractional Flow Reserve (A Prospective Validation)) Study

Background

The resting full‐cycle ratio (RFR) is a novel resting index which in contrast to the gold standard (fractional flow reserve (FFR)) does not require maximum hyperemia induction. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the agreement between RFR and FFR with the currently recommended thresholds and to design a hybrid RFR-FFR ischemia detection strategy, allowing a reduction of coronary vasodilator use.

Materials and Methods

Patients subjected to invasive physiological study in 9 Spanish centers were prospectively recruited between April 2019 and March 2020. Sensitivity and specificity studies were made to assess diagnostic accuracy between the recommended levels of RFR ≤0.89 and FFR ≤0.80 (primary objective) and to determine the RFR “grey zone” in order to define a hybrid strategy with FFR affording 95% global agreement compared with FFR alone (secondary objective).

Results

A total of 380 lesions were evaluated in 311 patients. Significant correlation was observed (R² = 0.81; P < 0.001) between the two techniques, with 79% agreement between RFR ≤ 0.89 and FFR ≤ 0.80 (positive predictive value, 68%, and negative predictive value, 80%). The hybrid RFR-FFR strategy, administering only adenosine in the “grey zone” (RFR: 0.86 to 0.92), exhibited an agreement of over 95% with FFR, with high predictive values (positive predictive value, 91%, and negative predictive value, 92%), reducing the need for vasodilators by 58%.

Conclusions

Dichotomous agreement between RFR and FFR with the recommended thresholds is significant but limited. The adoption of a hybrid RFR-FFR strategy affords very high agreement, with minimization of vasodilator use.

A novel fiber-optic based 0.014″ pressure wire: Designs of the OptoWire™, development phases, and the O2 first-in-man results

OBJECTIVES

To review the technical limitations of available pressure-wires, present the design evolution of a nitinol fiber-optic pressure wire and to summarize the First-in-Man (FIM) O2 pilot study results.

BACKGROUND

Despite increasing use of physiology assessment of coronary lesions, several technical limitations persist. We present technical details, design evolution and early clinical results with a novel 0.014" nitinol fiber-optic based pressure-wire.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The 0.014' OptoWire™ (Opsens Medical, Quebec, Canada) was designed to combine improved handling properties compared to standard pressure-wires and to offer extremely reliable pressure recording and transmission due to fiber-optic properties compared to piezo-electric sensors and electrical wires. In vitro assessment showed that OptoWire™ steerability, pushability and torquability properties were closer to regular PCI wires than standard electrical pressure wires. In the First-in-Man O2 study, 60 patients were recruited at 2 centers in Canada. A total of 103 lesions were assessed with the OptoWire™ and OptoMonitor™, 75 lesions at baseline and 28 lesions post-PCI (without disconnection). In all crossed lesions (n = 100, 97%), mean Pd/Pa and FFR could be adequately measured. In 11 cases assessed successively with OptoWire™ and Aegis™ (Abbott Vascular, USA) bland-Altman analysis showed a mean difference of 0.002 ± 0.052 mmHg (p = .91) for Pd/Pa and 0.01 ± 0.06 for FFR calculation (p = .45). There was no device-related complication. Upon these initial results, several design changes aimed to improve overall performance including torquability, stiffness, resistance to kink and pressure drift were completed.

CONCLUSION

The novel 0.014" fiber-optic OptoWire™ provides superior wire handling with reduced risk of pressure drift allowing reliable pre- and post-PCI physiology assessment.

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.