Patient stratification in left main coronary artery disease—Rationale from a contemporary perspective

The impact of downstream coronary stenosis on fractional flow reserve assessment of intermediate left main coronary artery disease: human validation

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the impact of downstream coronary stenosis in the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) or left circumflex coronary artery (LCx) on the assessment of fractional flow reserve (FFR) across an intermediate left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis in humans with the pressure wire positioned in the nondiseased downstream vessel.

BACKGROUND

Accurate assessment of intermediate LMCA disease is critical for guiding decisions regarding revascularization. In theory, FFR across an intermediate LMCA stenosis will be affected by downstream disease, even if the pressure wire is positioned in the nondiseased downstream vessel.

METHODS

After percutaneous coronary intervention of the LAD, LCx, or both, an intermediate LMCA stenosis was created with a deflated balloon catheter. FFR was measured in the LAD and LCx coronary arteries before and after creation of downstream stenosis by inflating an angioplasty balloon within the newly placed stent. The true FFR (FFRtrue) of the LMCA, measured in the nondiseased downstream vessel in the absence of stenosis in the other vessel, was compared with the apparent FFR (FFRapp) measured in the presence of stenosis.

RESULTS

In 25 patients, 91 pairs of measurements were made, 71 with LAD stenosis and 20 with LCx stenosis. FFRtrue of the LMCA was significantly lower than FFRapp (0.81 ± 0.08 vs. 0.83 ± 0.08, p < 0.001), although the numerical difference was small. This difference correlated with the severity of the downstream disease (r = 0.35, p < 0.001). In all cases in which FFRapp was >0.85, FFRtrue was >0.80.

CONCLUSIONS

In most cases, downstream disease does not have a clinically significant impact on the assessment of FFR across an intermediate LMCA stenosis with the pressure wire positioned in the nondiseased vessel.

Fractional flow reserve assessment of left main stenosis in the presence of downstream coronary stenoses

BACKGROUND

Several studies have shown that fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement can aid in the assessment of left main coronary stenosis. However, the impact of downstream epicardial stenosis on left main FFR assessment with the pressure wire in the nonstenosed downstream vessel remains unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Variable stenoses were created in the left main coronary arteries and downstream epicardial vessels in 6 anaesthetized male sheep using balloon catheters. A total of 220 pairs of FFR assessments of the left main stenosis were obtained, before and after creation of a stenosis in a downstream epicardial vessel, by having a pressure-sensor wire in the other nonstenosed downstream vessel. The apparent left main FFR in the presence of downstream stenosis (FFR(app)) was significantly higher compared with the true FFR in the absence of downstream stenosis (FFR(true); 0.80±0.05 versus 0.76±0.05; estimate of the mean difference, 0.035; P<0.001). The difference between FFR(true) and FFR(app) correlated with composite FFR of the left main plus stenosed artery (r=-0.31; P<0.001) indicating that this difference was greater with increasing epicardial stenosis severity. Among measurements with FFR(app) >0.80, 9% were associated with an FFR(true) of <0.75. In all instances, the epicardial lesion was in the proximal portion of the stenosed vessel, and the epicardial FFR (combined FFR of the left main and downstream stenosed vessel) was ≤0.50.

CONCLUSIONS

A clinically relevant effect on the FFR assessment of left main disease with the pressure wire in a nonstenosed downstream vessel occurs only when the stenosis in the other vessel is proximal and very severe.

Physiologic approach for coronary intervention

When invasively assessing coronary artery disease, the primary goal should be to determine whether the disease is causing a patient's symptoms and whether it is likely to cause future cardiac events. The presence of myocardial ischemia is our best gauge of whether a lesion is responsible for symptoms and likely to result in a future cardiac event. In the catheterization laboratory, fractional flow reserve (FFR) measured with a coronary pressure wire is the reference standard for identifying ischemia-producing lesions. Its spatial resolution is unsurpassed with it not only being vessel-specific, but also lesion-specific. There is now a wealth of data supporting the accuracy of measuring FFR to identify ischemia-producing lesions. FFR-guided percutaneous coronary intervention of these lesions results in improved outcomes and saves resources. Non-hemodynamically significant lesions can be safely managed medically with a low rate of subsequent cardiac events.

Myocardial fractional flow reserve. Its role in guiding PCI in stable coronary artery disease

Revascularization of coronary artery lesions should be based on objective evidence of ischemia, as recommended by the guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology. However, even in the case of stable coronary artery disease and elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), pre-procedural noninvasive stress test results are available in a minority of patients only. It is common practice for physicians to make decisions on revascularization in the catheterization laboratory after a cursory review of the angiogram, despite the well-recognized inaccuracy of such an approach. Myocardial fractional flow reserve (FFR) measured by a coronary pressure wire is a specific index of the functional significance of a coronary lesion, with superior diagnostic accuracy for the detection of ischemia than any noninvasive stress test. FFR trials on patients with single and multivessel disease, such as the DEFER and FAME studies, have demonstrated that the clinical benefit of PCI with respect to patient outcome is greatest when revascularization is limited to lesions inducing ischemia, whereas lesions not inducing ischemia should be treated medically.

Clinical outcome following conservative vs revascularization therapy in patients with stable coronary artery disease and borderline fractional flow reserve measurements

BACKGROUND

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements in the so-called gray-zone range of > or = 0.75 and < or =0.80 are associated with uncertainty concerning the guidance of patient therapy. It is unclear whether any difference in clinical outcome exists when revascularization treatment of FFR-evaluated lesions in this borderline range is deferred or performed. The objective of this study is to compare the clinical outcome of these patients with respect to their recommended treatment strategy.

METHODS

Out of a single center database of 900 consecutive patients with stable coronary artery disease, 97 patients with borderline FFR measurements were identified and included in the study. The rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), coronary revascularization) and the presence of angina were evaluated at follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 48 patients were deferred from revascularization and 49 patients underwent revascularization. There was no difference in risk profile between these groups. At a mean follow-up of 24+/-16 months, event-free survival in the deferred group was significantly better regarding overall MACE, combined rate of cardiac death, and MI, as well as MACE related to the FFR-evaluated vessel. No difference with regard to the presence of angina was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with coronary lesions in the borderline FFR range can be deferred from revascularization without putting them at increased risk for major adverse events. Revascularization may be considered in the course of therapy on an individual basis if typical angina persists or worsens despite maximal medical treatment.