Impact of Post-PCI FFR Stratified by Coronary Artery

Advancements and future perspectives in coronary angiography-derived fractional flow reserve

Angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) has emerged as a non-invasive technique to assess the functional significance of coronary artery stenoses. The clinical applications of angiography-derived FFR span a wide range of scenarios, including assessing intermediate coronary lesions and guiding revascularization decisions. This review paper aims to provide an overview of angiography-derived FFR, including its principles, clinical applications, and evidence supporting its accuracy and utility. Lastly, the review discusses future directions and ongoing research in the field, including the integration of angiography-derived FFR into routine clinical practice.

The Influence of Epicardial Resistance on Microvascular Resistance Reserve

BACKGROUND

The optimal index of microvascular function should be specific for the microvascular compartment. Yet, coronary flow reserve (CFR), despite being widely used to diagnose coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD), is influenced by both epicardial and microvascular resistance. Conversely, microvascular resistance reserve (MRR) adjusts for fractional flow reserve (FFR), and thus is theoretically independent of epicardial resistance.

OBJECTIVES

The authors tested the hypothesis that MRR, unlike CFR, is not influenced by increasing epicardial resistance, and thus is a more specific index of microvascular function.

METHODS

In a cohort of 16 patients who had undergone proximal left anterior descending artery stenting, we created 4 grades of artificial stenosis (no stenosis, mild, moderate, and severe) using a coronary angioplasty balloon inflated to different degrees within the stent. For each stenosis grade, we calculated CFR and MRR using continuous thermodilution (64 measurements of each) to assess their response to changing epicardial resistance.

RESULTS

Graded balloon inflation resulted in a significant sequential decrease in mean FFR (no stenosis: 0.82 ± 0.05; mild: 0.72 ± 0.04; moderate: 0.61 ± 0.05; severe: 0.48 ± 0.09; P < 0.001). This translated into a linear decrease in mean hyperemic coronary flow (no stenosis: 170.5 ± 66.8 mL/min; mild: 149.8 ± 58.8 mL/min; moderate: 124.4 ± 53.0 mL/min; severe: 94.0 ± 45.2 mL/min; P < 0.001). CFR exhibited a marked linear decrease with increasing stenosis (no stenosis: 2.5 ± 0.9; mild: 2.2 ± 0.8; moderate: 1.8 ± 0.7; severe: 1.4 ± 0.6), corresponding to a decrease of 0.3 for a decrease in FFR of 0.1 (P < 0.001). In contrast, MRR exhibited a negligible decrease across all stenosis grades (no stenosis: 3.0 ± 1.0; mild: 3.0 ± 1.0; moderate: 2.9 ± 1.0; severe: 2.8 ± 1.0), corresponding to a decrease of just 0.05 for a decrease in FFR of 0.1 (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

MRR, unlike CFR, is minimally influenced by epicardial resistance, and thus should be considered the more specific index of microvascular function. This suggests that MRR can also reliably evaluate microvascular function in patients with significant epicardial disease.

Fluid-filled versus sensor-tipped pressure guidewires for FFR and Pd/Pa measurement; PW-COMPARE study

BACKGROUND

Fluid-filled pressure guidewires are unaffected by the previously inevitable hydrostatic pressure gradient (HPG). This study aimed to compare simultaneous pressure measurements with fluid-filled and sensor-tipped pressure guidewires.

METHODS

Fifty patients underwent fractional flow reserve (FFR) and Pd/Pa measurement with a fluid-filled and a sensor-tipped pressure guidewire simultaneously. To assess maneuverability, patients were randomized with respect to which pressure guidewire was used to cross the lesion first. Lateral fluoroscopy was used to estimate height difference between catheter tip and distal wire position (and thus HPG). Agreement between pressure measurements was studied.

RESULTS

Measurements were performed in LM (4% (n = 2)), LAD (44% (n = 22)), LCX (26% (n = 13)), and RCA (26% (n = 13)). Simultaneous pressure measurements showed excellent agreement (mean FFR difference - 0.01 ± 0.03 (r = 0.959, p < 0.001), mean Pd/Pa difference - 0.01 ± 0.04 (r = 0.929, p < 0.001)). FFR was ≤0.80 in 42.6% (n = 20) with fluid-filled FFR measurements versus 46.8% (n = 22) by sensor-tipped FFR measurements. Mean height difference was 15 ± 34 mm, and strongly dependent on the coronary artery (LAD 45 ± 10 mm, LCX -23 ± 16 mm, RCA -13 ± 17 mm). There was a strong correlation between height difference and difference in pressure ratios between sensor-tipped and fluid-filled pressure guidewires (FFR r = -0.850, p < 0.001; Pd/Par = -0.641, p < 0.001). Largest FFR differences were present in the LAD (-0.04 ± 0.02). After HPG correction, mean difference between HPG-corrected sensor-tipped FFR and fluid-filled FFR was 0.00 ± 0.02, mean Pd/Pa difference was 0.01 ± 0.03.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows excellent overall correlation between FFR and Pd/Pa measurements with both pressure guidewires. Differences measured with fluid-filled and sensor-tipped pressure guidewires are vessel-specific and attributable to hydrostatic pressure gradients (NCT04802681).