Fractional flow reserve: Concepts, applications and use in France in 2010

Three-Year Outcomes With Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided or Angiography-Guided Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

In patients with multivessel disease with successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, the FLOWER-MI trial (Flow Evaluation to Guide Revascularization in Multivessel ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) showed that a fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided strategy was not superior to an angiography-guided strategy for treatment of noninfarct-related artery lesions regarding the 1-year risk of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization. The extension phase of the trial was planned using the same primary outcome to determine whether a difference in outcomes would be observed with a longer follow-up.

METHODS

In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease with successful percutaneous coronary intervention of the infarct-related artery to receive complete revascularization guided by either FFR (n=586) or angiography (n=577).

RESULTS

After 3 years, a primary outcome event occurred in 52 of 498 patients (9.40%) in the FFR-guided group and in 44 of 502 patients (8.17%) in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio, 1.19 [95% CI, 0.79-1.77]; P=0.4). Death occurred in 22 patients (4.00%) in the FFR-guided group and in 23 (4.32%) in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.53-1.71]); nonfatal myocardial infarction in 23 (4.13%) and 14 (2.56%), respectively (hazard ratio, 1.63 [95% CI, 0.84-3.16]); and unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization in 21 (3.83%) and 18 (3.36%; hazard ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.61-2.16]), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although event rates in the trial were lower than expected, in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing complete revascularization, an FFR-guided strategy did not have a significant benefit over an angiography-guided strategy with respect to the risk of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization up to 3 years.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02943954.

Performance of machine learning-based coronary computed tomography angiography for selecting revascularization candidates

BACKGROUND

Limited studies have investigated the accuracy of therapeutic decision-making using machine learning-based coronary computed tomography angiography (ML-CCTA) compared with CCTA.

PURPOSE

To investigate the performance of ML-CCTA for therapeutic decision compared with CCTA.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study population consisted of 322 consecutive patients with stable coronary artery disease. The SYNTAX score was calculated with an online calculator based on ML-CCTA results. Therapeutic decision-making was determined by ML-CCTA results and the ML-CCTA-based SYNTAX score. The therapeutic strategy and the appropriate revascularization procedure were selected using ML-CCTA, CCTA, and invasive coronary angiography (ICA) independently.

RESULTS

The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy of ML-CCTA and CCTA for selecting revascularization candidates were 87.01%, 96.43%, 95.71%, 89.01%, 91.93%, and 85.71%, 87.50%, 86.27%, 86.98%, 86.65%, respectively, using ICA as the standard reference. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of ML-CCTA for selecting revascularization candidates was significantly higher than CCTA (0.917 vs. 0.866, P = 0.016). Subgroup analysis showed the AUC of ML-CCTA for selecting percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) candidates was significantly higher than CCTA (0.883 vs. 0.777, P < 0.001, 0.912 vs. 0.826, P = 0.003, respectively).

CONCLUSION

ML-CCTA could distinguish between patients who need revascularization and those who do not. In addition, ML-CCTA showed a slightly superior to CCTA in making an appropriate decision for patients and selecting a suitable revascularization strategy.

Functional assessment of intermediate coronary artery stenosis with 4-Fr catheters

The 4-Fr catheter system is not recommended for invasive functional assessment of coronary artery stenosis, because it tends to distort the aortic waveform. This study aimed to identify the incidence of aortic waveform distortion and a feasible method for correct diagnosis of coronary artery stenosis with a 4-Fr catheter. We retrospectively investigated 178 lesions with intermediate coronary artery stenosis. Non-hyperemic distal coronary artery pressure (Pd) and aortic pressure (Pa) were measured with a 4-Fr diagnostic or 6-Fr guiding catheter before and after saline flush. The mean Pd/mean Pa (Pd/Pa) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) were calculated before and after flushing. We compared the effect of flushing on the changes in Pd/Pa and iFR between the 4-Fr diagnostic and 6-Fr guiding catheters. Using the 4-Fr diagnostic catheter, there was a significant decrease in incidence of aortic waveform distortion from 42.0% (47 lesions) before flushing to 1.8% (2 lesions) after flushing (p < 0.001); the incidence was only 3.0% before saline flush and decreased to 0% after saline flush when using the 6-Fr guiding catheter. The presence of aortic waveform distortion influenced the iFR when the 4-Fr system was used. Functional measurements with the 4-Fr diagnostic catheter require adequate saline flush to remove the influence of aortic waveform distortion.

Rationale and design of the Flow Evaluation to Guide Revascularization in Multivessel ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (FLOWER-MI) trial

BACKGROUND

In ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients presenting with multivessel disease (MVD), recent studies have demonstrated the superiority of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-culprit lesions compared to culprit lesion treatment-only therapy. FFR- and angio-guided PCI have however never been compared in STEMI patients.

TRIAL DESIGN

FLOWER-MI is an open-label multicenter national randomized clinical trial. The aim is to investigate FFR-guided complete revascularization in comparison to angio-guided complete revascularization in STEMI patients with successful PCI of the culprit lesion and ≥50% stenosis in at least one additional non-culprit lesion requiring PCI. Eligible patients will be randomized after successful primary PCI in a 1:1 fashion to either FFR-guided or angio-guided complete revascularization during the index procedure or a staged procedure before discharge (≤5 days). Patients assigned to FFR guidance first have FFR measured in each non-culprit vessel and only undergo PCI if FFR is ≤0.80. The primary end point of the study is a composite of major adverse cardiac events, including all-cause death, non-fatal MI, and unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization at 1 year. Secondary end points will include the individual adverse events, cost-effectiveness, quality of life, and 30-day, 6-month, and 3-year outcomes. Based on estimated event rates, a sample size of 1170 patients is needed to show superiority of the FFR-guided revascularization with 80% power.

CONCLUSION

The aim of FLOWER-MI trial is to assess whether FFR-guided complete revascularization in the acute setting is superior angio-guided complete revascularization.

Diagnostic Performance of the Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio: Comparison With Fractional Flow Reserve

BACKGROUND

Aim of the present study was to perform a meta-analysis of all available studies comparing the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) with fractional flow reserve (FFR).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Published trials comparing the iFR with FFR were searched for in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus electronic databases. A total of 23 studies were available for the analysis, including 6381 stenoses. First, a meta-analysis of all studies was performed exploring the correlation between FFR and iFR. Interestingly, we found good correlation (0.798 [0.78-0.82]) between the 2 indices (P<0.001). In addition, to evaluate the diagnostic performance of iFR to identify FFR-positive coronary stenoses, we performed an additional meta-analysis, summarizing the results of receiver operating characteristics analyses from individual studies reporting the area under the curve. Summing the results of these studies, we found that iFR has a good diagnostic performance for the identification of FFR-positive stenoses (area under the curve=0.88 [0.86-0.90]; P<0.001). Furthermore, our search results included 5 studies that compared iFR and FFR to a third independent reference standard. Interestingly, no significant differences between iFR and FFR were reported in those studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis shows that iFR significantly correlates with standard FFR and shows a good diagnostic performance in identifying FFR-positive coronary stenoses. Finally, iFR and FFR have similar diagnostic efficiency for detection of ischemia-inducing stenoses when tested against a third comparator.

Physiological evaluation of the provisional side-branch intervention strategy for bifurcation lesions using instantaneous wave-free ratio

Background

The provisional side-branch intervention strategy remains the gold standard approach for repair of coronary bifurcation lesions. We performed this study to evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes of using the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) for physiological assessment in provisional side-branch repair of bifurcation lesions.

Methods

Fifty patients with coronary bifurcation lesions were equally divided into two groups: (I) an iFR-guided side-branch intervention group and (II) a conventional group, in which the operator selected a different interventional method. After the procedure, we performed a six-month follow-up for postoperative ejection fraction (EF) and clinical cardiac outcomes.

Results

Our results showed that the iFR measurement procedure was technically feasible in bifurcation lesions, with no procedural-related complications. Moreover, measuring iFR significantly predicted the side-branch percent stenosis after stenting of the main branch (r = −0.81, p < 0.0001). Compared to the conventional group, the iFR-guided group showed a significantly shorter procedural time (MD = −14.6 min, 95% CI [−27.7, −1.4]) and hospital stay duration (MD = −0.92 days, 95% CI [−1.6, −0.28]). However, no significant differences were recorded between the iFR-guided and conventional groups in terms of postoperative EF (p = 0.9), six-month heart failure class (p = 0.89), or post-interventional angina (p = 0.066).

Conclusion

Using iFR for physiological assessment during the provisional side-branch intervention strategy can reduce the procedural time and length of hospital stay in patients with bifurcation lesions. Larger trials should compare the clinical outcomes of iFR to other physiological assessment methods such as the fractional flow reserve (FFR) in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions.

ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02785510

[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.

Fractional Flow Reserve Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Improves Clinical Outcome with Reduced Cost in Contemporary Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is currently considered as the gold standard for evaluating the functional significance of coronary stenosis. However, its potential benefits in real-world practice remain unknown in China. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the use of FFR is associated with improved outcome and reduced cost in Chinese real-world clinical practice.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was carried out using the database of Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, a tertiary and high-volume center in China. Clinical events were compared using the Cox proportional hazards model during a median follow-up of 13 months.

RESULTS

The study cohort consisted of 366 consecutive patients referred for coronary revascularization with adjunct FFR and 366 matched controls, from 2010 to 2014. Major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) (death, myocardial infarction, repeated revascularization, or hospitalization for angina) at 4 years were found in 12.0% of angiography-guided patients and 4.9% in the FFR-guided group (P < 0.001). The mean number of implanted stents was significantly lower in FFR treated subjects (0.52 ± 0.82 stents) compared with the angiography-guided group (0.93 ± 0.96 stents) (P < 0.001). No difference in overall costs at initial hospitalization was observed between angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with FFR-guided PCI (RMB 33,000 Yuan, range: RMB 7393-44,700 Yuan) versus RMB 21,200 Yuan (RMB 19,100-47,100 Yuan) (P = 0.54). However, costs for MACEs during follow-up were significantly reduced in the FFR-guided arm (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In the contemporary clinical practice, FFR-guided PCI is associated with decreased use of stents, improved clinical outcome, and reduced costs, compared with angiography-guided PCI.

Comprehensive assessment of coronary fractional flow reserve

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is considered nowadays as the gold standard for invasive assessment of physiologic stenosis significance and an indispensable tool for decision-making in coronary revascularization. Robust studies have shown that FFR is more effective in accurately identifying which lesions should be stented, and revascularization guided by FFR improves the outcome of coronary artery disease in patients. Therefore, FFR has been upgraded to a class A recommendation in current guidelines when the ischemic potential for specific target lesions is controversial. This article reviews the laboratory practice, functional evaluation of FFR as a gold standard and its emerging clinical application. In addition, novel noninvasive technologies of FFR measurement are discussed in depth.

Advances in coronary physiology

Pressure-wire technology, most typically fractional flow reserve (FFR), has provided interventional cardiologists with a means of determining the physiological importance of a stenosis during angiography. There has been renewed interest in coronary physiology in the light of guideline recognition, ongoing clinical research and new technologies changing the paradigm of how assessment is performed in the catheter laboratory. We reflect on FFR, with regards the potential effects of changing hemodynamics on FFR and the latest evidence with regards to outcomes. We also review the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), a new pressure-only index, measured at rest, that is under active evaluation in several international randomized controlled trials. We review the accumulated evidence and discuss the important physiological concepts between pressure and flow that underlie the approach to using resting indices. Finally we investigate future developments, including physiological mapping with iFR-Pullback and the potential to predict the hemodynamic effect of stenting.

The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) for evaluation of non-culprit lesions in patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease

BACKGROUND

Adenosine administration is currently required for evaluation of stenosis severity with fractional flow reserve (FFR). The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) was recently introduced as an adenosine-free alternative in patients with stable CAD. The aim of the present study was to replicate the findings of previous iFR studies using an independent calculation algorithm and to evaluate the iFR for the assessment of non-culprit vessels in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

METHODS AND RESULTS

53 patients with ACS (65%) and at least one non-culprit intermediate lesion and 29 (35%) with stable CAD were included. A total of 123 stenoses were evaluated with both FFR and iFR. Classification match of iFR in ACS was not inferior to stable CAD (79.5% in ACS and 84.4% in CAD; p=0.497). Accordingly, no difference was observed in iFR/FFR correlation between ACS and stable CAD (r=0.66 in ACS vs. r=0.69 in CAD). Overall, a significant correlation was found between iFR and FFR (r=0.68; p<0.001) with a good diagnostic efficiency at ROC analysis (area under the curve: 0.87). In addition, neither the localization of the stenosis within the coronary tree (p=0.147) nor the time interval from the acute event (p=0.550) significantly influenced the concordance of iFR with FFR.

CONCLUSIONS

The iFR is a promising method for the assessment of non-culprit lesion severity in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

[ST segment elevation myocardial infarction: what is the best timing for revascularization of non-culprit lesions?]

Approximately 50% of patients admitted for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have multi-vessel disease. Current guidelines recommend revascularization of the culprit lesion only during the initial procedure except in cardiogenic shock. Benefits of revascularization of associated functional lesions are not debate. However, timing of the procedure is not clear. This article is a review over timing of secondary revascularization in STEMI patients with multi-vessels disease.

Improvement in coronary haemodynamics after percutaneous coronary intervention: assessment using instantaneous wave-free ratio

Objective

To determine whether the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) can detect improvement in stenosis significance after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and compare this with fractional flow reserve (FFR) and whole cycle Pd/Pa.

Design

A prospective observational study was undertaken in elective patients scheduled for PCI with FFR ≤0.80. Intracoronary pressures were measured at rest and during adenosine-mediated vasodilatation, before and after PCI. iFR, Pd/Pa and FFR values were calculated using the validated fully automated algorithms.

Setting

Coronary catheter laboratories in two UK centres and one in the USA.

Patients

120 coronary stenoses in 112 patients were assessed. The mean age was 63±10 years, while 84% were male; 39% smokers; 33% with diabetes. Mean diameter stenosis was 68±16% by quantitative coronary angiography.

Results

Pre-PCI, mean FFR was 0.66±0.14, mean iFR was 0.75±0.21 and mean Pd/Pa 0.83±0.16. PCI increased all indices significantly (FFR 0.89±0.07, p<0.001; iFR 0.94±0.05, p<0.001; Pd/Pa 0.96±0.04, p<0.001). The change in iFR after intervention (0.20±0.21) was similar to ΔFFR 0.22±0.15 (p=0.25). ΔFFR and ΔiFR were significantly larger than resting ΔPd/Pa (0.13±0.16, both p<0.001). Similar incremental changes occurred in patients with a higher prevalence of risk factors for microcirculatory disease such as diabetes and hypertension.

Conclusions

iFR and FFR detect the changes in coronary haemodynamics elicited by PCI. FFR and iFR have a significantly larger dynamic range than resting Pd/Pa. iFR might be used to objectively document improvement in coronary haemodynamics following PCI in a similar manner to FFR.

Long-term outcomes of fractional flow reserve-guided vs. angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in contemporary practice

AIMS

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the reference standard for the assessment of the functional significance of coronary artery stenoses, but is underutilized in daily clinical practice. We aimed to study long-term outcomes of FFR-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the general clinical practice.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this retrospective study, consecutive patients (n = 7358), referred for PCI at the Mayo Clinic between October 2002 and December 2009, were divided in two groups: those undergoing PCI without (PCI-only, n = 6268) or with FFR measurements (FFR-guided, n = 1090). The latter group was further classified as the FFR-Perform group (n = 369) if followed by PCI, and the FFR-Defer group (n = 721) if PCI was deferred. Clinical events were compared during a median follow-up of 50.9 months. The Kaplan-Meier fraction of major adverse cardiac events at 7 years was 57.0% in the PCI-only vs. 50.0% in the FFR-guided group (P = 0.016). Patients with FFR-guided interventions had a non-significantly lower rate of death or myocardial infarction compared with those with angiography-guided interventions [hazard ratio (HR): 0.85, 95% CI: 0.71-1.01, P = 0.06]; the FFR-guided deferred-PCI strategy was independently associated with reduced rate of myocardial infarction (HR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.26-0.82, P = 0.008). After excluding patients with FFR of 0.75-0.80 and deferring PCI, the use of FFR was significantly associated with reduced rate of death or myocardial infarction (HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.66-0.96, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

In the contemporary practice, an FFR-guided treatment strategy is associated with a favourable long-term outcome. The current study supports the use of the FFR for decision-making in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization.