Análise comparativa do fractional flow reserve (FFR) e do instantaneous wave‐free ratio (iFR): resultados de um registo de 5 anos

Comparison of Fractional Flow Reserve with Resting Non-Hyperemic Indices in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease

Guidelines recommend using hyperemic (FFR) and non-hyperemic (iFR/RFR) methods of evaluating coronary artery stenoses in patients with coronary artery disease. However, in some cases, achieved results indicating significant ischemia may differ between those methods. Thus, we sought to identify predictors of such a discrepancy. Data were collected on all consecutive patients with chronic coronary syndrome hospitalized between 2020 and 2021. For 279 patients (417 vessels), results for both FFR and iFR/RFR were available. Values of ≤0.80 for FFR and ≤0.89 for iFR/RFR were considered positive for ischemia. Discordant measurements of FFR and iFR/RFR were observed in 80 (19.2%) patients. Atrial fibrillation was the only predictor of the overall FFR and iFR/RFR discordance - OR (95%CI) 1.90 (1.02-3.51); p = 0.040. The chance of positive FFR and negative iFR/RFR decreased independently with age - OR (95%CI) 0.96 (0.93-0.99); p = 0.024. On the contrary, insulin-treated diabetes mellitus was the predictor of negative FFR and positive iFR/RFR discrepancy - OR (95%CI) 4.61 (1.38-15.40); p = 0.013. In everyday clinical practice, iFR/FFR correlates well with FFR. However, discordance between these methods is quite common. Physicians should be aware of the risk of such discordance in patients with atrial fibrillation, advanced age, and insulin-treated diabetes mellitus.

A preliminary identification of PIN1 SNP linkage in patients with coronary heart disease from Handan, China

Our aim was to perform an initial assessment of the polymorphic patterns of the PIN1 gene in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). The PIN1-encoded protein (Pin1) suppresses eNOS-NO signaling and may impair cardiovascular function. Blood collection, DNA extraction, PCR amplification and gene sequencing were performed for thirty CHD participants living in central China, focusing on nine single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Their genetic linkages were revealed and their allele frequencies were compared with SNP data from the NCBI. Three major linkage patterns were identified: [1.rs2287839-5.rs2233682], [3.rs2233679-4.rs1077220-8.rs2287838] and [6.rs889162-7.rs2010457], suggesting correlated involvement in CHD and possible simultaneous genetic origin in ancient times. The frequencies of six SNPs are consistent with the NCBI data, while the frequencies of three SNPs (2.rs2233678, 4.rs1077220 and 9.rs4804461) are not consistent with the NCBI. Especially, the 3.rs2233679-4.rs1077220 linkage is different from other populations worldwide and may be an interesting genetic characteristic of Chinese CHD patients. Predictably, 1.rs2287839, 2.rs2233678, 3.rs2233679 and 5.rs2233682 may be strongly associated with CHD risk, although this requires future verification. The PIN1 SNP linkages lay a new genetic foundation for discovering novel molecular mechanisms of CHD and for exploring PIN1-based targeted treatment of CHD with nitric oxide regulatory therapies in clinical practice.

Evaluation of Myocardial Ischemia with iFR (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio in the Catheterization Laboratory: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

The Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio (iFR) is an invasive functional evaluation method that does not require vasoactive drugs to induce maximum hyperemia.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the contribution of the iFR to the therapeutic decision-making of coronary lesions in the absence of non-invasive diagnostic methods for ischemia, or in case of discordance between these methods and coronary angiography.

METHOD

We studied patients older than 18 years, of both sexes, consecutively referred for percutaneous treatment between May 2014 and March 2018. Coronary stenotic lesions were classified by visual estimation of the stenosis diameter into moderate (41-70% stenosis) or severe (71%-90%). An iFR ≤ 0.89 was considered positive for ischemia. Logistic regression was performed using the elastic net, with placement of stents as outcome variable, and age, sex, arterial hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, smoking, family history, obesity and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) as independent variables. Classification trees, ROC curves, and Box Plot graphs were constructed using the R software. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients with 96 stenotic lesions (56 moderate, 40 severe) were evaluated. The iFR cut-off point of 0.87 showed a sensitivity of 0.57 and 1-specificity of 0.88, demonstrating high accuracy in reclassifying the lesions. Diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, and presence of moderate lesions with an iFR < 0.87 were predictors of stent implantation. Stents were used in 32% of lesions in patients with stable coronary artery disease and AMI with or without ST elevation (non-culprit lesions).

CONCLUSION

The iFR has an additional value to the therapeutic decision making in moderate and severe coronary stenotic lesions, by contributing to the reclassification of lesions and decreasing the need for stenting.

Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio versus Quantitative Flow Ratio for Detecting the Functional Significance of Coronary Stenosis

Background

Fractional flow reserve (FFR), as a functional measurement of coronary stenosis, is recommended for guiding revascularization in intermediate coronary lesions. However, it still remains underutilized for potential reasons including time consumption, costs, or contraindications associated with adenosine administration. Here we performed this meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic performance of two adenosine-free indices, instantaneous wave free-ratio (iFR), and quantitative flow ratio (QFR) in evaluating coronary stenosis severity with FFR as the reference standard.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to include relevant studies with the diagnostic accuracy of iFR or QFR referenced to FFR. A bivariate model was applied to pool diagnostic parameters. We used Cochran's Q test and I² index to assess heterogeneity and identify the potential source of heterogeneity by meta-regression.

Results

A total of 8213 lesions from 28 studies (19 for iFR and 9 for QFR) were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.83) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.87) for iFR and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84 to 0.93) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.86 to 0.90) for QFR, respectively. Significantly higher sensitivity and specificity were observed in the bivariate analysis for QFR than for iFR (P < 0.001 for both). The area under summary receiver-operating curve of iFR and QFR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86 to 0.92) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89 to 0.94).

Conclusion

Evidence suggests that both of the two indices have good performance in detecting functional ischemia of coronary arteries and QFR might be a promising method without requiring the pressure wire. Further application of QFR may potentially provide important information to clinicians in the assessment of coronary lesions.