Combined use of hyperemic and non-hyperemic pressure ratios for revascularization decision-making: From the ILIAS registry

Combined assessment of fractional flow reserve, resting full-cycle ratio, and resting ratio of distal coronary to aortic pressure for clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and non-hyperemic indices are invasive standards for evaluating functional significance of coronary stenosis. However, data are limited about outcomes in vessels with concordant and discordant physiological results, particularly with a ratio of distal coronary to aortic pressure (Pd/Pa) at rest.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective, observational study. Coronary physiological indices including FFR, resting full-cycle ratio (RFR), and resting Pd/Pa were invasively evaluated in vessels with intermediate coronary artery stenosis. FFR ≤0.80, RFR ≤0.89, and resting Pd/Pa ≤0.92 were considered physiologically positive. Vessels were divided into three groups according to the results of FFR, RFR, and resting Pd/Pa: concordant positive (all positive for FFR, RFR, and resting Pd/Pa), concordant negative (all negative for FFR, RFR, and resting Pd/Pa), and discordant groups. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF) defined as a composite of cardiac death and target vessel myocardial infarction and unplanned revascularization.

RESULTS

Of 987 vessels included, 311 (31.5 %), 263 (26.6 %), and 413 (41.9 %) were in the concordant positive, discordant, and concordant negative groups. During a median follow-up period of 417 (208-756) days, TVF occurred more frequently in the concordant positive group, followed by the discordant and concordant negative groups (7.7 % vs. 4.6 % vs. 2.4 %, p = 0.004). TVF increasingly accrued during long-term follow-up, while discordant results of RFR and resting Pd/Pa did not result in worse outcomes compared with negative RFR and resting Pd/Pa.

CONCLUSION

The combined assessment of FFR with RFR and resting Pd/Pa stratified TVF risks in vessels with intermediate coronary stenosis.

Validation of resting full-cycle ratio and diastolic pressure ratio with [15O]H2O positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) are invasive techniques used to evaluate the hemodynamic significance of coronary artery stenosis. These methods have been validated through perfusion imaging and clinical trials. New invasive pressure ratios that do not require hyperemia have recently emerged, and it is essential to confirm their diagnostic efficacy. The aim of this study was to validate the resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) and the diastolic pressure ratio (dPR), against [15O]H2O positron emission tomography (PET) imaging. A total of 129 symptomatic patients with an intermediate risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) were included. All patients underwent cardiac [15O]H2O PET with quantitative assessment of resting and hyperemic myocardial perfusion. Within a 2 week period, coronary angiography was performed. Intracoronary pressure measurements were obtained in 320 vessels and RFR, dPR, and FFR were computed. PET derived regional hyperemic myocardial blood flow (hMBF) and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) served as reference standards. In coronary arteries with stenoses (43%, 136 of 320), the overall diagnostic accuracies of RFR, dPR, and FFR did not differ when PET hyperemic MBF < 2.3 ml min-1 (69.9%, 70.6%, and 77.1%, respectively) and PET MPR < 2.5 (70.6%, 71.3%, and 66.9%, respectively) were considered as the reference for myocardial ischemia. Non-significant differences between the areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were found between the different indices. Furthermore, the integration of FFR with RFR (or dPR) does not enhance the diagnostic information already achieved by FFR in the characterization of ischemia via PET perfusion. In conclusion, the novel non-hyperemic pressure ratios, RFR and dPR, have a diagnostic performance comparable to FFR in assessing regional myocardial ischemia. These findings suggest that RFR and dPR may be considered as an FFR alternative for invasively guiding revascularization treatment in symptomatic patients with CAD.

Prognostic differences between physiology-guided percutaneous coronary intervention and optimal medical therapy in coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Intracoronary physiology, particularly fractional flow reserve (FFR), has been used as a guide for revascularization for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). The optimal treatment in the physiological grey-zone area has been unclear and remains subject to ongoing debate.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing the prognostic effect of percutaneous coronary revascularization (PCI) and optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients with CAD. Studies were identified by medical literature databases. The outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and its components, death, myocardial infarction (MI), and repeat revascularization.

Results

A total of 16 studies with 27,451 patients were included. The pooled analysis demonstrated that PCI was associated with a prognostic advantage over OMT in patients with FFR value ≤0.80 (RR: 0.64, 95 % CI: 0.45-0.90, p < 0.01). Patients with an FFR value >0.80 were shown to benefit more from OMT (RR 1.38, 95 % CI 1.24-1.53, p < 0.01). The analysis also showed that there was no significant difference in MACE in the grey-zone area (FFR 0.75-0.80) (RR 0.64, 95 % CI: 0.35-1.16, p = 0.14), but a significant reduction in repeat revascularization (RR 0.54, 95 % CI, 0.31-0.91, p < 0.01) when patients were treated with PCI.

Conclusions

Among patients with CAD and FFR values >0.80, OMT was associated with favorable outcomes over PCI in reducing the risk of MACE. However, among patients with FFR values ≤0.80, revascularization was superior in terms of reducing MACE. The available evidence supports the guideline-recommended use of an FFR cut-off of ≤0.80.

Hemodynamic Insights into Combined Fractional Flow Reserve and Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Assessment Through Quantitative [15O]H2O PET Myocardial Perfusion Imaging

In patients evaluated for obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), guidelines recommend using either fractional flow reserve (FFR) or instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) to guide coronary revascularization decision-making. The hemodynamic significance of lesions with discordant FFR and iFR measurements is debated. This study compared [15O]H2O PET-derived absolute myocardial perfusion between vessels with concordant and discordant FFR and iFR measurements. Methods: We included 197 patients suspected of obstructive CAD who had undergone [15O]H2O PET perfusion imaging and combined FFR/iFR interrogation in 468 vessels. Resting myocardial blood flow (MBF), hyperemic MBF, and coronary flow reserve (CFR) were compared among 4 groups: FFR low/iFR low (n = 79), FFR high/iFR low (n = 22), FFR low/iFR high (n = 22), and FFR high/iFR high (n = 345). Predefined [15O]H2O PET thresholds for ischemia were 2.3 mL·min-1·g-1 or less for hyperemic MBF and 2.5 or less for CFR. Results: Hyperemic MBF was lower in the concordant low (2.09 ± 0.67 mL·min-1·g-1), FFR high/iFR low (2.41 ± 0.80 mL·min-1·g-1), and FFR low/iFR high (2.40 ± 0.69 mL·min-1·g-1) groups compared with the concordant high group (2.91 ± 0.84 mL·min-1·g-1) (P < 0.001, P = 0.004, and P < 0.001, respectively). A lower CFR was observed in the concordant low (2.37 ± 0.76) and FFR high/iFR low (2.64 ± 0.84) groups compared with the concordant high group (3.35 ± 1.07, P < 0.01 for both). However, for vessels with either low FFR or low iFR, quantitative hyperemic MBF and CFR values exceeded the ischemic threshold in 38% and 49%, respectively. In addition, resting MBF exhibited a negative correlation with iFR (P < 0.001) and was associated with FFR low/iFR high discordance compared with concordant low FFR/low iFR measurements, independent of clinical and angiographic characteristics, as well as hyperemic MBF (odds ratio [OR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.26-0.65; P < 0.001). Conclusion: We found reduced myocardial perfusion in vessels with concordant low and discordant FFR/iFR measurements. However, FFR/iFR combinations often inaccurately classified vessels as either ischemic or nonischemic when compared with hyperemic MBF and CFR. Furthermore, a lower resting MBF was associated with a higher iFR and the occurrence of FFR low/iFR high discordance. Our study showed that although combined FFR/iFR assessment can be useful to estimate the hemodynamic significance of coronary lesions, these pressure-derived indices provide a limited approximation of [15O]H2O PET-derived quantitative myocardial perfusion as the physiologic standard of CAD severity.