Impact of Aortic Valve Stenosis on Coronary Hemodynamics and the Instantaneous Effect of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Unusual Presentation of De Winter's Sign Due to Bezold-Jarisch Reflex in a Patient With Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis

The de Winter electrocardiogram (ECG) pattern, marked by upsloping ST depression in leads V2-V6, ST elevation in lead aVR, and tall symmetric T waves, typically indicates left anterior descending artery (LAD) occlusion. Traditionally linked to LAD occlusion, it is rare in severe aortic stenosis and the Bezold-Jarisch reflex (BJR). We report an 83-year-old man with severe aortic stenosis who developed hypotension due to bleeding and exhibited the de Winter ECG pattern. This case highlights how severe aortic stenosis and BJR can lead to significant hemodynamic instability and ischemic ECG changes, resolving after hemodynamic stabilization.

Differential Effect of Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis on Hyperemic and Resting Epicardial Coronary Pressure Indices

BACKGROUND

Coronary pressure indices to assess coronary artery disease are currently underused in patients with aortic stenosis due to many potential physiological effects that might hinder their interpretation. Studies with varying sample sizes have provided us with conflicting results on the effect of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) on these indices. The aim of this meta-analysis was to study immediate and long-term effects of TAVR on fractional flow reserve (FFR) and nonhyperemic pressure ratios (NHPRs).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Lesion-specific coronary pressure data were extracted from 6 studies, resulting in 147 lesions for immediate change in FFR analysis and 105 for NHPR analysis. To investigate the long-term changes, 93 lesions for FFR analysis and 68 for NHPR analysis were found. Lesion data were pooled and compared with paired t tests. Immediately after TAVR, FFR decreased significantly (-0.0130±0.0406 SD, P: 0.0002) while NHPR remained stable (0.0003±0.0675, P: 0.9675). Long-term after TAVR, FFR decreased significantly (-0.0230±0.0747, P: 0.0038) while NHPR increased nonsignificantly (0.0166±0.0699, P: 0.0543). When only borderline NHPR lesions were considered, this increase became significant (0.0249±0.0441, P: 0.0015). Sensitivity analysis confirmed our results in borderline lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR resulted in small significant, but opposite, changes in FFR and NHPR. Using the standard cut-offs in patients with severe aortic stenosis, FFR might underestimate the physiological significance of a coronary lesion while NHPRs might overestimate its significance. The described changes only play a clinically relevant role in borderline lesions. Therefore, even in patients with aortic stenosis, an overtly positive or negative physiological assessment can be trusted.

Evaluation of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve in Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis

BACKGROUND

The optimal functional evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) has not been established. The objective of the study was to evaluate the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) in patients with and without severe AS.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated 395 lesions in 293 patients with severe AS and 2257 lesions in 1882 patients without severe AS between 2010 and 2022 from a subgroup of the Interventional Cardiology Research In-Cooperation Society FFR Registry. All patients had FFR values, and iFR was analyzed post hoc using dedicated software only in lesions with adequate resting pressure curves (311 lesions in patients with severe AS and 2257 lesions in patients with nonsevere AS).

RESULTS

The incidence of iFR ≤0.89 was 66.6% and 31.8% (P<0.001), while the incidence of FFR ≤0.80 was 45.3% and 43.9% (P=0.60) in the severe AS group and the nonsevere AS group, respectively. In the severe AS group, most lesions (95.2%) with iFR >0.89 had FFR >0.80, while 36.2% of lesions with iFR ≤0.89 had FFR >0.80. During a median follow-up of 2 years, FFR ≤0.80 was significantly associated with deferred lesion failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.71 [95% CI, 1.08-6.80]; P=0.034), while iFR ≤0.89 showed no prognostic value (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 0.47-3.60]; P=0.60) in the severe AS group. Lesions with iFR ≤0.89 and FFR >0.80, in particular, were not associated with a higher rate of deferred lesion failure at 3 years compared with lesions with iFR >0.89 (15.4% versus 17.0%; P=0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggested that FFR appears to be less affected by the presence of severe AS and is more associated with prognosis. iFR may overestimate the functional severity of coronary artery disease without prognostic significance, yet it can be useful for excluding significant stenosis in patients with severe AS.

A randomised multicentre study of angiography- versus physiologyguided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing TAVI: design and rationale of the FAITAVI trial

The treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (AVS) eligible for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is not supported by clinical evidence, and the role of physiology over anatomy as well as the timing of coronary intervention are not defined. FAITAVI (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03360591) is a nationwide prospective, open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled study comparing the angiography-guided versus the physiology-guided coronary revascularisation strategy in patients with combined significant CAD and severe AVS undergoing TAVI. Significant CAD will be defined as coronary stenosis ≥50%, as assessed by visual estimation in vessels ≥2.5 mm. Physiology will be tested by fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). The study will be conducted at 15 sites in Italy. In the angiography arm, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) will be performed either before TAVI, during the TAVI procedure - before or after the valve implantation - or within 1 month±5 days of the valve implantation, left to the operator's decision. In the physiology arm, FFR and iFR will be performed before TAVI, and PCI will be indicated for FFR ≤0.80, otherwise the intervention will be deferred. In case of borderline values (0.81-0.85), FFR and iFR will be repeated after TAVI, with PCI performed when needed. With a sample size of 320 patients, the study is powered to evaluate the primary endpoint (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, major bleeding, or ischaemia-driven target vessel revascularisation). TAVI indication, strategy and medical treatment will be the same in both groups. After discharge, patients will be contacted at 1, 6, 12 and 24 months after the procedure to assess their general clinical status, and at 12 months for the occurrence of events included in the primary and secondary endpoints. FAITAVI is the first randomised clinical trial to investigate "optimal" percutaneous coronary intervention associated with TAVI in patients with severe AVS and CAD.

Coronary microvascular dysfunction in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) at long term after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and to explore its relationship with extravalvular cardiac damage (EVCD). Moreover, we sought to test the correlation between angiography-derived index of microcirculatory resistance (IMRangio) and invasive IMR in patients with aortic stenosis (AS).

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of the Verona Valvular Heart Disease Registry (Italy) including 250 patients (83 (80-86) years, 53% female) with severe AS who underwent TAVI between 2019 and 2021. IMRangio was calculated offline using a computational flow model applied to coronary angiography obtained during the TAVI workup. CMD was defined as IMRangio ≥30 units.The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death and rehospitalisation for heart failure (HF). Advanced EVCD was defined as pulmonary circulation impairment, severe tricuspid regurgitation or right ventricular dysfunction.The correlation between IMR and IMRangio was prospectively assessed in 31 patients undergoing TAVI.

RESULTS

The primary endpoint occurred in 28 (11.2%) patients at a median follow-up of 22 (IQR 12-30) months. Patients with CMD met the primary endpoint more frequently than those without CMD (22.9% vs 2.8%, p<0.0001). Patients with CMD were more frequently characterised by advanced EVCD (33 (31.4%) vs 27 (18.6%), p=0.024). CMD was an independent predictor of adverse outcomes (adjusted HR 6.672 (2.251 to 19.778), p=0.001) and provided incremental prognostic value compared with conventional clinical and imaging variables. IMRangio demonstrated fair correlation with IMR.

CONCLUSIONS

CMD is an independent predictor of cardiovascular mortality and HF after TAVI.

Coronary Flow Reserve and Myocardial Resistance Reserve Changes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Aortic Stenosis

Aortic valve stenosis (AS) induces an alteration in hemodynamic conditions that are responsible for coronary microvasculature impairment. Relief of AS by transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is expected to improve the coronary artery hemodynamic. We aimed to assess the midterm effects of TAVI in coronary flow reserve (CFR) and myocardial resistance reserve (MRR) by a continuous intracoronary thermodilution technique. At-rest and hyperemic coronary flow was measured by a continuous thermodilution technique in 23 patients with AS and compared with that in 17 matched controls, and repeated 6 ± 3 months after TAVI in 11 of the patients with AS. In patients with AS, absolute coronary flow at rest was significantly greater, and absolute resistance at rest was significantly less, than in controls (p <0.01 for both), causing less CFR and MRR (1.73 ± 0.4 vs 2.85 ± 1.1, p <0.01 and 1.95 ± 0.4 vs 3.22 ± 1.4, p <0.01, respectively). TAVI implantation yielded a significant 35% increase in CFR (p >0.01) and a 39% increase in MRR (p <0.01) driven by absolute coronary flow at rest reduction (p = 0.03). In patients with AS, CFR and MRR determined by continuous thermodilution are significantly impaired. At 6-month follow-up, TAVI improves these indexes and partially relieves the pathophysiologic alterations, leading to a partial restoration of CFR and MRR.

Is Coronary Physiology Assessment Valid in Special Circumstances?: Aortic Stenosis, Atrial Fibrillation, Left Ventricular Hypertrophy, and Other

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and nonhyperemic pressure ratios (NHPRs) provide an important clinical tool to evaluate the hemodynamic significance of coronary lesions. However, these indices have major limitations. As these indices are meant to be surrogates of coronary flow, clinical scenarios such as aortic stenosis (with increased end-systolic and end-diastolic pressures) or atrial fibrillation (with significant beat-to-beat cardiac output variability) can have significant effect on the accuracy and reliability of these hemodynamic indices. Here, we provide a comprehensive evaluation of the pitfalls, limitations, and strengths of FFR and NHPRs in common clinical scenarios paired with coronary artery disease.

Prognostic value of coronary microvascular dysfunction in patients with aortic stenosis and nonobstructed coronary arteries

BACKGROUND

Patients with aortic valve stenosis have been postulated to have coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) contributing to the clinical symptoms and adverse outcomes. The coronary angiography (CAG)-derived index of microcirculatory resistance (caIMR) is proposed as a novel, less invasive and pressure-wire-free index to assess CMD. This study aimed to quantify CMD assessed by caIMR and investigate its prognostic impact in patients with aortic valve stenosis.

METHODS

This study included 77 moderate or severe aortic valve stenosis patients with no obstructive coronary disease (defined as having no stenosis more than 50% in diameter) who underwent caIMR measurement. CMD was defined by caIMR at least 25. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were the clinical outcomes during the median 40 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

The incidence of CMD was 47.7%. Seventeen MACE occurred during the follow-up duration. CMD was associated with an increased risk of MACE (log-rank P < 0.001) and an independent predictor of clinical outcomes [hazard ratio 5.467, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.393-21.458; P = 0.015]. The receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis demonstrated that caIMR could provide a significant predictive value for MACE in aortic valve stenosis patients (AUC 0.785, 95% CI 0.609-0.961, P < 0.001). In addition, the risk of MACE was higher in CMD patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (log-rank P < 0.001) and no aortic valve replacement (log-rank P = 0.003) than in other groups.

CONCLUSION

Aortic valve stenosis patients demonstrated markedly impaired caIMR. CMD assessed by caIMR increases the risk of MACE and is an independent predictor of adverse outcomes in aortic valve stenosis patients. This finding suggests that using caIMR in the clinical assessment may help identify high-risk groups and stimulate earlier intervention.

Practical Application of Coronary Physiologic Assessment: Asia-Pacific Expert Consensus Document: Part 2

Coronary physiologic assessment is performed to measure coronary pressure, flow, and resistance or their surrogates to enable the selection of appropriate management strategy and its optimization for patients with coronary artery disease. The value of physiologic assessment is supported by a large body of clinical data that has led to major recommendations in all practice guidelines. This expert consensus document aims to convey practical and balanced recommendations and future perspectives for coronary physiologic assessment for physicians and patients in the Asia-Pacific region, based on updated information in the field that includes both wire- and image-based physiologic assessment. This is Part 2 of the whole consensus document, which provides theoretical and practical information on physiologic indexes for specific clinical conditions and patient statuses.

Near-infrared spectroscopy-intravascular ultrasound to improve assessment of coronary artery disease severity in patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (The IMPACTavi registry): Design and rationale

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) was established as a standard treatment for high-operative risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Although coronary artery disease (CAD) often coexists with AS, clinical and angiographic evaluations of stenosis severity are unreliable in this specific setting. To provide precise risk stratification of coronary lesions, combined near-infrared spectroscopy and intravascular ultrasound (NIRS-IVUS) was developed to integrate morphological and molecular information on plaque composition. However, there is a lack of evidence on the association between NIRS-IVUS derived findings such as maximum 4mm lipid core burden index (maxLCBI4mm) and clinical outcomes in AS patients undergoing TAVI. This registry aims to assess feasibility and safety of NIRS-IVUS imaging in the setting of routine pre-TAVI coronary angiography to improve assessment of CAD severity.

METHODS

The registry is designed as a non-randomized, prospective, observational, multicenter cohort registry. Patients referred for TAVI with angiographic evidence of CAD receive NIRS-IVUS imaging and are followed up to 24 months. Enrolled patients are classified as NIRS-IVUS positive and NIRS-IVUS negative, respectively, based on their maxLCBI4mm to compare their clinical outcomes. The primary endpoint of the registry is major adverse cardiovascular events over a 24-month follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Identification of patients likely or unlikely to benefit from revascularization prior to TAVI represents an important unmet clinical need. This registry is designed to investigate whether NIRS-IVUS-derived atherosclerotic plaque characteristics can identify patients and lesions at risk for future adverse cardiovascular events after TAVI, in order to refine interventional decision-making in this challenging patient population.

Invasive Functional Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis in the TAVI Era

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a common finding in patients suffering from aortic valve stenosis (AS), with a prevalence of over 50% in patients 70 years of age or older. Transcatheter aortic valve intervention (TAVI) is the standard treatment option for patients with severe AS and at least 75 years of age. Current guidelines recommend percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients planned for TAVI with stenoses of >70% in the proximal segments of non-left main coronary arteries and in >50% of left main stenoses. While the guidelines on myocardial revascularization clearly recommend functional assessment of coronary artery stenoses of less than 90% in the absence of non-invasive ischemia testing, a statement regarding invasive functional testing in AS patients with concomitant CAD is lacking in the recently published guideline on the management of valvular heart disease. This review aims to provide an overview of the hemodynamic background in AS patients, discusses and summarizes the current evidence of invasive functional testing in patients with severe AS, and gives a future perspective on the ongoing trials on that topic.

The impact of moderate aortic stenosis in acute myocardial infarction: A multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Aortic stenosis (AS) is associated with myocardial ischemia through different mechanisms and may impair coronary arterial flow. However, data on the impact of moderate AS in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) is limited.

AIMS

This study aimed to investigate the impact of moderate AS in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients who presented with acute MI to all Mayo Clinic hospitals, using the Enterprise Mayo PCI Database from 2005 to 2016. Patients were stratified into two groups: moderate AS and mild/no AS. The primary outcome was all cause mortality.

RESULTS

The moderate AS group included 183 (13.3%) patients, and the mild/no AS group included 1190 (86.7%) patients. During hospitalization, there was no difference between both groups in mortality. Patients with moderate AS had higher in-hospital congestive heart failure (CHF) (8.2% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.025) compared with mild/no AS patients. At 1-year follow-up, patients with moderate AS had higher mortality (23.9% vs. 8.1%, p < 0.001) and higher CHF hospitalization (8.3% vs. 3.7%, p = 0.028). In multivariate analysis, moderate AS was associated with higher mortality at 1-year (odds ratio 2.4, 95% confidence interval [1.4-4.1], p = 0.002). In subgroup analyses, moderate AS increased all-cause mortality in STEMI and NSTEMI patients.

CONCLUSION

The presence of moderate AS in acute MI patients was associated with worse clinical outcomes during hospitalization and at 1-year follow-up. These unfavorable outcomes highlight the need for a close follow-up of these patients and for timely therapeutic strategies to best manage these coexisting conditions.

Impact of coronary disease patterns, anatomical factors, micro-vascular disease and non-coronary cardiac factors on invasive coronary physiology

Invasive coronary physiology has been applied by interventional cardiologists to guide the management of coronary artery disease (CAD), with well-defined thresholds applied to determine whether CAD should be managed with optimal medical therapy (OMT) alone or OMT and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There are multiple modalities in clinical use, including hyperaemic and non-hyperaemic indices. Despite endorsement in the major guidelines, there are various factors which impact and confound the readings of invasive coronary physiology, both within the coronary tree and beyond. This review article aims to summarise the mechanisms by which these factors impact invasive coronary physiology, and distinguish factors that contribute to ischaemia from confounding factors. The potential for mis-classification of ischaemic status is highlighted. Lastly, the authors identify targets for future research to improve the precision of physiology-guided management of CAD.

Is Coronary Physiology Assessment Valid in Special Circumstances?: Aortic Stenosis, Atrial Fibrillation, Left Ventricular Hypertrophy, and Other

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and nonhyperemic pressure ratios (NHPRs) provide an important clinical tool to evaluate the hemodynamic significance of coronary lesions. However, these indices have major limitations. As these indices are meant to be surrogates of coronary flow, clinical scenarios such as aortic stenosis (with increased end-systolic and end-diastolic pressures) or atrial fibrillation (with significant beat-to-beat cardiac output variability) can have significant effect on the accuracy and reliability of these hemodynamic indices. Here, we provide a comprehensive evaluation of the pitfalls, limitations, and strengths of FFR and NHPRs in common clinical scenarios paired with coronary artery disease.

Myocardial Perfusion and Coronary Physiology Assessment of Microvascular Dysfunction in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation-Rationale and Design

The prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) is 30-68%. Nevertheless, there is still not enough evidence to use invasive assessment of lesion severity, because the hemodynamic milieu of AS may impact the fractional flow reserve (FFR) and non-hyperemic indices. Therefore, the aim of the study is two-fold. First, to measure acute and long-term changes of FFR, index of microvascular resistance (IMR), and coronary flow reserve (CFR) in patients undergoing TAVI procedure. Second, to compare the diagnostic accuracy of intracoronary indices with myocardial perfusion measured by cadmium-zinc-telluride single-photon emission tomography (CZT-SPECT) and find cut-off values defining significant stenosis. We plan to enroll 40 patients eligible for TAVI with intermediate stenosis (30-70%) in the left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery. In each patient FFR, CFR, and IMR will be measured in addition to myocardial blood flow calculated by CZT-SPECT before and either immediately after TAVI (acute cohort) or in 6 months (late cohort) after the procedure. FFR, CFR, and IMR will be matched with the results of myocardial perfusion measured by CZT-SPECT in the area of LAD. As a result, cut-off values of FFR, CFR, and IMR defining the decreased blood flow will be found.

Critical role of the coronary microvasculature in heart disease: From pathologic driving force to "innocent" bystander

The coronary microvasculature is responsible for providing oxygen and nutrients to myocardial tissue. A healthy microvasculature with an intact and properly functioning endothelium accomplishes this by seemless changes in vascular tone to match supply and demand. Perturbations in the normal physiology of the microvasculature, including endothelial and/or vascular smooth muscle dysfunction, result in impaired function (vasoconstriction, antithrombotic, etc.) and structural (hypertrophic, fibrotic) abnormalities that lead to microvascular ischemia and potential organ damage. While coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is the primary pathologic driving force in ischemia with non-obstructive coronary artery disease (INOCA), angina with no obstructive coronary arteries (ANOCA), and myocardial infarction with non-obstructed coronary arteries (MINOCA), it may be a bystander in many cardiac disorders which later become pathologically associated with signs and/or symptoms of myocardial ischemia. Importantly, regardless of the primary or secondary basis of CMD in the heart, it is associated with important increases in morbidity and mortality. In this review we discuss salient features pertaining to known pathophysiologic mechanisms driving CMD, the spectrum of heart diseases where it places a critical role, invasive and non-invasive diagnostic testing, management strategies, and the gaps in knowledge where future research efforts are needed.

Quantitative flow ratio for evaluation of borderline coronary lesions in patients with severe aortic stenosis

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel noninvasive method for evaluating coronary physiology. However, data on the QFR in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease are scarce. Thus, we compared the diagnostic performance of the QFR with that of the resting distal to aortic coronary pressure (Pd/Pa) ratio, fractional flow reserve (FFR), and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), as well as angiographic indices.

METHODS

A total of 221 AS patients with 416 vessels undergoing FFR/iFR measurements were enrolled in the study.

RESULTS

The mean percent diameter stenosis (%DS) was 58.6%±13.4% and the mean Pd/Pa ratio, FFR, iFR, and QFR were 0.95±0.03, 0.85±0.07, 0.90±0.04, and 0.84±0.07, respectively. A FFR ≤ 0.80 was noted in 26.0% of interrogated vessels, as well as an iFR ≤ 0.89 in 33.2% and QFR ≤ 0.80 in 31.7%. The QFR had better agreement with FFR (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [95%CI], 0.95-0.96) than with the iFR (ICC, 0.79; 95%CI, 0.75-0.82) and Pd/Pa ratio (ICC, 0.52; 95%CI, 0.44-0.58). In addition, the QFR showed better diagnostic accuracy (98.6% vs 94.2%; P <.001) and discriminant function (area under the curve=0.996 vs 0.988; P <.001) when the iFR was used as the reference instead of FFR.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with AS, the QFR has good agreement with both FFR and iFR. However, the agreement appears to be even better when the iFR is used as the reference, presumably due to the complex nature of the coronary physiology in the assessment of coronary artery disease in patients with severe AS.

Microcirculatory Function in Nonhypertrophic and Hypertrophic Myocardium in Patients With Aortic Valve Stenosis

Background Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) has often been supposed to be associated with abnormal myocardial blood flow and resistance. The aim of this study was to evaluate and quantify the physiological and pathological changes in myocardial blood flow and microcirculatory resistance in patients with and without LVH attributable to severe aortic stenosis. Methods and Results Absolute coronary blood flow and microvascular resistance were measured using a novel technique with continuous thermodilution and infusion of saline. In addition, myocardial mass was assessed with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Fifty-three patients with aortic valve stenosis were enrolled in the study. In 32 patients with LVH, hyperemic blood flow per gram of tissue was significantly decreased compared with 21 patients without LVH (1.26±0.48 versus 1.66±0.65 mL·min^-1·g^-1; P=0.018), whereas minimal resistance indexed for left ventricular mass was significantly increased in patients with LVH (63 [47-82] versus 43 [35-63] Wood Units·kg; P=0.014). Conclusions Patients with LVH attributable to severe aortic stenosis had lower hyperemic blood flow per gram of myocardium and higher minimal myocardial resistance compared with patients without LVH.

Angina with coronary microvascular dysfunction and its physiological assessment: a review with cases

Imagine that it is possible to know, the actual coronary blood flow. Would this not remove any doubt, if a chest pain is the heart's fault?

Feasibility and Comparison of Resting Full-Cycle Ratio and Computed Tomography Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients with Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis

Background: Computed tomography derived Fractional Flow Reserve (CT-FFR) has been shown to decrease the referral rate for invasive coronary angiography (ICA). The purpose of the study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CT-FFR compared to hyperemia-free index Resting Full-cycle Ratio (RFR) in patients with relevant aortic stenosis (AS) and intermediate coronary stenosis. Methods: 41 patients with 46 coronary lesions underwent ICA with quantitative coronary angiography (QCA), pressure wire assessment and routine pre-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) computed tomography (CT). CT-FFR analysis was performed using prototype on-site software. Results: RFR showed a significant correlation with CT-FFR (Pearson’s correlation, r = 0.632, p < 0.001). On a per-lesion basis, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of CT-FFR were 82.6% (95% CI 68.6−92.2), 69.6% (95% CI 47.1−86.8), 95.7% (95% CI  78.1−99.9), 94.1% (95% CI 69.8−99.1), and 75.9% (95% CI 62.7−85.4), respectively. The optimal cutoff value of the CT-FFR for RFR ≤ 0.89 prediction was 0.815. The area under the receiver curve showed a larger area under the curve for CT-FFR (0.87; 95% CI 0.75−0.98) compared with CTA stenosis of ≥50% (0.54, 95% CI 0.38−0.71), CTA ≥ 70% (0.72, 95% CI 0.57−0.87) and QCA ≥ 50% (0.67, 95% CI 0.52−0.83). Conclusions: CT-FFR assessed by routine pre-TAVR CT is safe and feasible and shows a significant correlation with RFR in patients with AS. CT-FFR is superior to QCA ≥ 50%, CT ≥ 50% and CT ≥ 70% in assessing the hemodynamic relevance of intermediate coronary lesions. Thus, CT-FFR has the potential to guide revascularization in patients with AS.

Challenges in Diagnosis and Functional Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis

More than half of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) over 70 years old have coronary artery disease (CAD). Exertional angina is often present in AS-patients, even in the absence of significant CAD, as a result of oxygen supply/demand mismatch and exercise-induced myocardial ischemia. Moreover, persistent myocardial ischemia leads to extensive myocardial fibrosis and subsequent coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) which is defined as reduced coronary vasodilatory capacity below ischemic threshold. Therefore, angina, as well as noninvasive stress tests, have a low specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) for the assessment of epicardial coronary stenosis severity in AS-patients. Moreover, in symptomatic patients with severe AS exercise testing is even contraindicated. Given the limitations of noninvasive stress tests, coronary angiography remains the standard examination for determining the presence and severity of CAD in AS-patients, although angiography alone has poor accuracy in the evaluation of its functional severity. To overcome this limitation, the well-established invasive indices for the assessment of coronary stenosis severity, such as fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), are now in focus, especially in the contemporary era with the rapid increment of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of AS-patients. TAVR induces an immediate decrease in hyperemic microcirculatory resistance and a concomitant increase in hyperemic flow velocity, whereas resting coronary hemodynamics remain unaltered. These findings suggest that FFR may underestimate coronary stenosis severity in AS-patients, whereas iFR as the non-hyperemic index is independent of the AS severity. However, because resting coronary hemodynamics do not improve immediately after TAVR, the coronary vasodilatory capacity in AS-patients treated by TAVR remain impaired, and thus the iFR may overestimate coronary stenosis severity in these patients. The optimal method for evaluating myocardial ischemia in patients with AS and co-existing CAD has not yet been fully established, and this important issue is under further investigation. This review is focused on challenges, limitations, and future perspectives in the functional assessment of coronary stenosis severity in these patients, bearing in mind the complexity of coronary physiology in the presence of this valvular heart disease.

The coronary and microcirculatory measurements in patients with aortic valve stenosis study: rationale and design

Although concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) is frequent in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), hemodynamic assessment of CAD severity in patients undergoing valve replacement for severe AS is challenging. Myocardial hypertrophic remodeling interferes with coronary blood flow and may influence the values of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and nonhyperemic pressure ratios (NHPRs). The aim of the current study is to investigate the effect of the AS and its treatment on current indices used for evaluation of CAD. We will compare intracoronary hemodynamics before, immediately after, and 6 mo after aortic valve replacement (AVR) when it is expected that microvascular function has improved. Furthermore, we will compare FFR and resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) with myocardial perfusion single-photon emission-computed tomography (SPECT) as indicators of myocardial ischemia in patients with AS and CAD. One-hundred consecutive patients with AS and intermediate CAD will be prospectively included. Patients will undergo pre-AVR SPECT and intracoronary hemodynamic assessment at baseline, immediately after valve replacement [if transcatheter AVR (TAVR) is chosen], and 6 mo after AVR. The primary end point is the change in FFR 6 mo after AVR. Secondary end points include the acute change of FFR after TAVR, the diagnostic accuracy of FFR versus RFR compared with SPECT for the assessment of ischemia, changes in microvascular function as assessed by the index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR), and the effect of these changes on FFR. The present study will evaluate intracoronary hemodynamic parameters before, immediately after, and 6 mo after AVR in patients with AS and intermediate coronary stenosis. The understanding of the impact of AVR on the assessment of FFR, NHPR, and microvascular function may help guide the need for revascularization in patients with AS and CAD planned for AVR.

Model-based analysis of the sensitivities and diagnostic implications of FFR and CFR under various pathological conditions

Although fractional flow reserve (FFR) and coronary flow reserve (CFR) are both frequently used to assess the functional severity of coronary artery stenosis, discordant results of diagnosis between FFR and CFR in some patient cohorts have been reported. In the present study, a computational model was employed to quantify the impacts of various pathophysiological factors on FFR and CFR. In addition, a hyperemic myocardial ischemic index (HMIx) was proposed as a reference for comparing the diagnostic performances of FFR and CFR. Obtained results showed that CFR was more susceptible than FFR to the influence of many pathophysiological factors unrelated to coronary artery stenosis. In particular, the numerical study proved that increasing hyperemic coronary microvascular resistance significantly elevated FFR while reducing CFR despite fixed severity of coronary artery stenosis, whereas introducing aortic valve disease only caused a significant decrease in CFR with little influence on FFR. These results provided theoretical evidence for explaining some clinical observations, such as the increased risk of discordant diagnostic results between FFR and CFR in patients with increased hyperemic microvascular resistance, and significant increase in CFR after surgical relief of severe aortic valve disease. When evaluated with respect to the predictive value for hyperemic myocardial ischemia, the performance of FFR was found to be considerably compromised in the presence of severe coronary vasodilation dysfunction or aortic valve disease, whereas the relationship between CFR and HMIx remained relatively stable, suggesting that CFR may be a more reliable indicator of myocardial ischemia under complex pathophysiological conditions.

Diagnostic Work-Up of the Aortic Patient: An Integrated Approach toward the Best Therapeutic Option

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular heart disease. In the last decade, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the standard of care for symptomatic patients at high surgical risk. Recently, indications to TAVI have also been extended to the low surgical risk and intermediate surgical risk populations. Consequently, in this setting, some aspects acquire greater relevance: surgical risk evaluation, clinical assessment, multimodality imaging of the valve, and management of coronary artery disease. Moreover, future issues such as coronary artery re-access and valve-in-valve interventions should be considered in the valve selection process. This review aims to summarize the principal aspects of a multidimensional (multidisciplinary) and comprehensive preprocedural work-up. The Heart Team is at the center of the decision-making process of the management of aortic valve disease and bears responsibility for offering each patient a tailored approach based on an individual evaluation of technical aspects together with the risks and benefits of each modality. Considering the progressive expansion in TAVI indication and technological progress, the role of a work-up and multidisciplinary Heart Team will be even more relevant.

Coronary Revascularization in Patients Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis

Aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD) frequently coexist, with up to two thirds of patients with AS having significant CAD. Given the challenges when both disease states are present, these patients require a tailored approach diagnostically and therapeutically. In this review the authors address the impact of AS and aortic valve replacement (AVR) on coronary hemodynamic status and discuss the assessment of CAD and the role of revascularization in patients with concomitant AS and CAD. Remodeling in AS increases the susceptibility of myocardial ischemia, which can be compounded by concomitant CAD. AVR can improve coronary hemodynamic status and reduce ischemia. Assessment of the significance of coexisting CAD can be done using noninvasive and invasive metrics. Revascularization in patients undergoing AVR can benefit certain patients in whom CAD is either prognostically or symptomatically important. Identifying this cohort of patients is challenging and as yet incomplete. Patients with dual pathology present a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge; both AS and CAD affect coronary hemodynamic status, they provoke similar symptoms, and their respective treatments can have an impact on both diseases. Decisions regarding coronary revascularization should be based on understanding this complex relationship, using appropriate coronary assessment and consensus within a multidisciplinary team.

Intraoperative hypotension and delirium among older adults undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Background

Postoperative delirium (POD) is a frequently observed complication after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The effects of intraoperative hypotension (IOH) on POD occurrence are currently unclear.

Methods

A retrospective observational cohort study of patients who underwent TAVR was conducted. We predefined IOH as area under the threshold (AUT) of five mean arterial blood pressures (MBP), varying from <100 to <60 mmHg. The AUT consisted of the combination of duration and depth under the MBP thresholds, expressed in mmHg*min. All MBP AUTs were computed based on the complete procedure, independent of procedural phase or duration.

Results

This cohort included 675 patients who underwent TAVR under general anesthesia (n = 128, 19%) or procedural sedation (n = 547, 81%). Delirium occurred mostly during the first 2 days after TAVR, and was observed in n = 93 (14%) cases. Furthermore, 674, 672, 663, 630, and 518 patients had at least 1 min intraoperative MBP <100, <90, <80, <70, and <60 mmHg, respectively. Patients who developed POD had higher AUT based on all five MBP thresholds during TAVR. The penalized adjusted odds ratio varied between 1.08 (99% confidence interval [CI] 0.74–1.56) for the AUT based on MBP < 100 mmHg and OR 1.06 (99% CI 0.88–1.28) for the AUT based on MBP < 60 mmHg.

Conclusions

Intraoperative hypotension is frequently observed during TAVR, but not independently associated with POD after TAVR. Other potential factors than intraoperative hypotension may explain the occurrence of delirium after TAVR.

Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction Across the Spectrum of Cardiovascular Diseases: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) encompasses several pathogenetic mechanisms involving coronary microcirculation and plays a major role in determining myocardial ischemia in patients with angina without obstructive coronary artery disease, as well as in several other conditions, including obstructive coronary artery disease, nonischemic cardiomyopathies, takotsubo syndrome, and heart failure, especially the phenotype associated with preserved ejection fraction. Unfortunately, despite the identified pathophysiological and prognostic role of CMD in several conditions, to date, there is no specific treatment for CMD. Due to the emerging role of CMD as common denominator in different clinical phenotypes, additional research in this area is warranted to provide personalized treatments in this "garden variety" of patients. The purpose of this review is to describe the pathophysiological mechanisms of CMD and its mechanistic and prognostic role across different cardiovascular diseases. We will also discuss diagnostic modalities and the potential therapeutic strategies resulting from recent clinical studies.

Hyperemic versus non-hyperemic indexes for coronary physiology assessment in patients with severe aortic stenosis

PURPOSE

Recent data suggests that fractional flow reserve (FFR) may underestimate intermediate coronary stenosis in the presence of severe aortic stenosis (AS), whereas instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) values may remain similar after treatment of AS, yet the evidence still lacks to use iFR as the reference. We aimed to compare FFR/iFR values in the AS setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The functional significance of 416 coronary lesions in 221 patients with severe AS was investigated with iFR and FFR.

RESULTS

The diagnostic agreement between iFR and FFR has been tested, using the cut-off value of 0.89 for iFR and 0.80 for FFR. The mean diameter stenosis was 58.6 ​± ​13.4% with FFR of 0.85 ​± ​0.07 and iFR of 0.90 ​± ​0.04. FFR ≤0.80 was identified in 26.0% and iFR≤0.89 in 33.2% of interrogated vessels. Good agreement between iFR and FFR was confirmed (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 0.83 [95%CI 0.79-0.85]). The overall diagnostic accuracy (AUC in ROC analysis) of FFR in detecting iFR≤0.89 was 0.997 (95%CI 0.986 to 1.000; p<0.001) and of iFR in detecting FFR≤0.80 was 0.995 (95%CI 0.983 to 0.999; p<0.001). The optimal cut-off value for FFR to detect iFR≤0.89 was 0.82 with sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 97.1%, 98.9%, and 97.7%, respectively, and for IFR to detect FFR≤0.80 was 0.88 with sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 99.1%, 95.8%, and 97.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In the presence of AS, FFR has good agreement with iFR. However, the optimal FFR/iFR threshold to identify iFR≤0.89/FFR≤0.80 may be different from the standard thresholds of ischemia.

Optimal Prognostication of Patients with Coronary Stenoses in the Pre- and Post-PCI setting: Comments on TARGET FFR and DEFINE-FLOW Trials Presented at TCT Connect 2020

The body of evidence for the use of coronary physiology assessments to guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been growing continuously in recent decades. Two studies presented during TCT Connect 2020 added insights into the prognostic value of coronary physiology measurements in pre- and post-PCI settings. The first study, TARGET FFR, assessed whether a post-PCI fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided incremental optimisation strategy (PIOS) was superior to angiography-guided PCI. The second study, DEFINE-FLOW, assessed the course of stenoses with fractional and coronary flow reserve (FFR+/CFR-) discordance when treated medically. This article summarises the main results from the TARGET FFR and the DEFINE-FLOW trials and puts them into the context of the existing literature.

Echocardiographic assessment of coronary microvascular dysfunction: Basic concepts, technical aspects, and clinical settings

Coronary flow reserve is the capacity of the coronary circulation to augment the blood flow in response an increase in myocardial metabolic demands and has a powerful prognostic significance in different clinical situations. It might assess with invasive and noninvasive technique. Transthoracic echocardiography Doppler is an emerging diagnostic technique, noninvasive, highly feasible, safe for patient and physician, without radiation, and able to detect macrovascular and microvascular anomalies in the coronary circulation. This review aims to describe the benefit and limits of echocardiographic assessment of coronary flow reserve.

Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Patients with Concomitant Severe Aortic Stenosis and Coronary Artery Disease: A Closer Look to the Unresolved Perplexity

Degenerative aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD) are the most prevalent cardiovascular diseases in developed countries, and they coexist in up to 50% of patients. The pathophysiological rationale behind concomitant AS and CAD is discussed in detail in this review, together with prognostic implications. Detecting CAD in patients with AS may be challenging, as AS may mask the existence and symptoms of CAD. The safety and reliability of invasive and non-invasive physiological assessment for epicardial coronary disease are also a matter of debate. Finally, the selection and timing of optimal treatment of CAD in patients with severe AS are still unclear. Given the aging of the population, the increase in the prevalence of AS, and the ongoing paradigm shift in its treatment, controversies in the diagnosis and treatment of CAD in the setting of AS are deemed to grow in importance. In this paper, we present contemporary issues in the diagnosis and management of CAD in patients with severe AS who are transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) candidates and provide perspective on the treatment approach.

Quantitative flow ratio as a new tool for angiography-based physiological evaluation of coronary artery disease: a review

The functional evaluation of coronary stenoses has obtained important clinical results in recent years, resulting in strong guideline recommendations. Nonetheless, the use of coronary wire-based functional evaluation has not yet become part of the routine in catheterization laboratories for several reasons, including the need to advance a wire into the coronary vessel to interrogate the stenosis. Angiography-derived indexes have been introduced to expand the current use of physiology to estimate the functional meaning of a stenosis on the basis of angiographic data only. The most studied and validated angiography-derived index is certainly the quantitative flow ratio. This article will summarize the basics of the quantitative flow ratio, the related validation studies and its current and future applications.

The pathogenic role of coronary microvascular dysfunction in the setting of other cardiac or systemic conditions

Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) plays a pathogenic role in cardiac and systemic conditions other than microvascular angina. In this review, we provide an overview of the pathogenic role of CMD in the setting of diabetes mellitus, obesity, hypertensive pregnancy disorders, chronic inflammatory and autoimmune rheumatic disorders, chronic kidney disease, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and aortic valve stenosis. In these various conditions, CMD results from different structural, functional, and/or dynamic alterations in the coronary microcirculation associated with the primary disease process. CMD is often detectable very early in the course of the primary disease, before clinical symptoms or signs of myocardial ischaemia are present, and it portrays an increased risk for cardiovascular events.

Non-hyperaemic pressure ratios to guide percutaneous coronary intervention

The use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in guiding revascularisation improves patient outcomes and has been well-established in clinical guidelines. Despite this, the uptake of FFR has been limited, likely attributable to the perceived increase in procedural time and use of hyperaemic agents that can cause patient discomfort. This has led to the development of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), an alternative non-hyperaemic pressure ratio (NHPR). Since its inception, the use of iFR has been supported by an increasing body of evidence and is now guideline recommended. More recently, other commercially available NHPRs including diastolic hyperaemia-free ratio and resting full-cycle ratio have emerged. Studies have demonstrated that these indices, in addition to mean distal coronary artery pressure to mean aortic pressure ratio, are mathematically analogous (with specific nuances) to iFR. Additionally, there is increasing data demonstrating the equivalent diagnostic performance of alternative NHPRs in comparison with iFR and FFR. These NHPRs are now integral within most current pressure wire systems and are commonly available in the catheter laboratory. It is therefore key to understand the fundamental differences and evidence for NHPRs to guide appropriate clinical decision-making.

Adverse clinical outcomes in patients undergoing both PCI and TAVR: Analysis from a pooled multi-center registry

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data regarding the optimum timing of PCI in relation to TAVR.

OBJECTIVE

We compared the major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) rates among patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) before transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with those who received PCI with/after TAVR.

METHODS

In this multicenter study, we pooled all consecutive patients who underwent TAVR at three high volume centers.

RESULTS

Among 3,982 patients who underwent TAVR, 327 (8%) patients underwent PCI within 1 year before TAVR, 38 (1%) had PCI the same day as TAVR and 15 (0.5%) had PCI within 2 months after TAVR. Overall, among patients who received both PCI and TAVR (n = 380), history of previous CABG (HR:0.501; p = .001), higher BMI at TAVR (HR:0.970; p = .038), and statin therapy after TAVR (HR:0.660, p = .037) were independently associated with lower MACCE while warfarin therapy after TAVR was associated with a higher risk of MACCE (HR:1.779, p = .017). Patients who received PCI within 1 year before TAVR had similar baseline demographics, STS scores, clinical risk factors when compared to patients receiving PCI with/after TAVR. Both groups were similar in PCI (Syntax Score, ACC/AHA lesion class) and TAVR (valve types, access) related variables. There were no significant differences in terms of MACCE (log rank p = .550), all-cause mortality (log rank p = .433), strokes (log rank p = .153), and repeat PCI (log rank p = .054) in patients who underwent PCI with/after TAVR when compared to patients who received PCI before TAVR.

CONCLUSION

Among patients who underwent both PCI and TAVR, history of CABG, higher BMI, and statin therapy had lower, while those discharged on warfarin, had higher adverse event rates. Adverse events rates were similar regardless of timing of PCI.

Coronary Microcirculation in Aortic Stenosis: Pathophysiology, Invasive Assessment, and Future Directions

With the increasing prevalence of aortic stenosis (AS) due to a growing elderly population, a proper understanding of its physiology is paramount to guide therapy and define severity. A better understanding of the microvasculature in AS could improve clinical care by predicting left ventricular remodeling or anticipate the interplay between epicardial stenosis and myocardial dysfunction. In this review, we combine five decades of literature regarding microvascular, coronary, and aortic valve physiology with emerging insights from newly developed invasive tools for quantifying microcirculatory function. Furthermore, we describe the coupling between microcirculation and epicardial stenosis, which is currently under investigation in several randomized trials enrolling subjects with concomitant AS and coronary disease. To clarify the physiology explained previously, we present two instructive cases with invasive pressure measurements quantifying coexisting valve and coronary stenoses. Finally, we pose open clinical and research questions whose answers would further expand our knowledge of microvascular dysfunction in AS. These trials were registered with NCT03042104, NCT03094143, and NCT02436655.

Hemodynamic effects of aortic valve and heart rate on coronary perfusion

BACKGROUND

Reduced coronary flow reserve in aortic stenosis and after transcatheter aortic valve implantation is usually attributed to physiological factors taking place during systole, such as an increase in coronary resistance, and backward waves intensity. In this paper, we suggest an additional factor related to the diastolic hemodynamics in the aortic root.

METHODS

We measured left ventricle, aortic and coronary pressure and coronary perfusion in in-vitro models of healthy, aortic stenosis and an artificial valve at different heart rates and cardiac output conditions, to isolate the effect of hemodynamic factors in the aortic root during diastole.

FINDINGS

Our results show that during diastole, coronary perfusion depends on the pressure gradient between the aorta and the coronary inlet. This aorta-coronary pressure gradient is influenced by the hemodynamic flow field in the aortic root. The ratio between the aorta-coronary pressure gradient magnitude in stress to that under rest conditions of a healthy model is ten times higher than the same ratio in the aortic stenosis model and twice higher as compared to the artificial valve model result. The coronary flow reserve of the healthy model is correspondingly higher compared to the artificial valve and the aortic stenosis models. These results are in agreement with the clinical evidence.

INTERPRETATION

This study supports the hypothesis of a hemodynamic mechanism in the aortic root that increases coronary flow during rest but reduces the coronary flow reserve in aortic stenosis and artificial valve cases. The results may provide valuable insights regarding valve design.

Determining the Significance of Coronary Plaque Lesions: Physiological Stenosis Severity and Plaque Characteristics

The evaluation of coronary lesions has evolved in recent years. Physiologic-guided revascularization (particularly with pressure-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR)) has led to superior outcomes compared to traditional angiographic assessment. A greater importance, therefore, has been placed on the functional significance of an epicardial lesion. Despite the improvements in the limitations of angiography, insights into the relationship between hemodynamic significance and plaque morphology at the lesion level has shown that determining the implications of epicardial lesions is rather complex. Investigators have sought greater understanding by correlating ischemia quantified by FFR with plaque characteristics determined on invasive and non-invasive modalities. We review the background of the use of these diagnostic tools in coronary artery disease and discuss the implications of analyzing physiological stenosis severity and plaque characteristics concurrently.

Long-Term Effects of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation on Coronary Hemodynamics in Patients With Concomitant Coronary Artery Disease and Severe Aortic Stenosis

Background As younger patients are being considered for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), the assessment and treatment of concomitant coronary artery disease is taking on increased importance. Methods and Results Thirteen contemporary lower-risk patients with TAVI with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and moderate-severe coronary lesions were included. Patients underwent assessment of coronary hemodynamics in the presence of severe AS (pre-TAVI), in the absence of severe AS (immediately post-TAVI), and at longer-term follow-up (6 months post-TAVI). Fractional flow reserve decreased from 0.85 (0.76-0.88) pre-TAVI to 0.79 (0.74-0.83) post-TAVI, and then to 0.71 (0.65-0.77) at 6-month follow-up (P<0.001 for all comparisons). Conversely, instantaneous wave-free ratio was not significantly different: 0.82 (0.80-0.90) pre-TAVI, 0.83 (0.77-0.88) post-TAVI, and 0.83 (0.73-0.89) at 6 months (P=0.735). These changes are explained by the underlying coronary flow. Hyperemic whole-cycle coronary flow (fractional flow reserve flow) increased from 26.36 cm/s (23.82-31.82 cm/s) pre-TAVI to 30.78 cm/s (29.70-34.68 cm/s) post-TAVI (P=0.012), to 40.20 cm/s (32.14-50.00 cm/s) at 6-month follow-up (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Resting flow during the wave-free period of diastole was not significantly different: 25.48 cm/s (21.12-33.65 cm/s) pre-TAVI, 24.54 cm/s (20.74-27.88 cm/s) post-TAVI, and 25.89 cm/s (22.57-28.96 cm/s) at 6 months (P=0.500). Conclusions TAVI acutely improves whole-cycle hyperemic coronary flow, with ongoing sustained improvements at longer-term follow-up. This enhanced response to hyperemic stimuli appears to make fractional flow reserve assessment less suitable for patients with severe AS. Conversely, resting diastolic flow is not significantly influenced by the presence of severe AS. Resting indices of coronary stenosis severity, therefore, appear to be more appropriate for this patient population, although large-scale prospective randomized trials will be required to determine the role of coronary physiology in patients with severe AS.

Determining the Predominant Lesion in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and Coronary Stenoses: A Multicenter Study Using Intracoronary Pressure and Flow

Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) often have coronary artery disease. Both the aortic valve and the coronary disease influence the blood flow to the myocardium and its ability to respond to stress; leading to exertional symptoms. In this study, we aim to quantify the effect of severe AS on the coronary microcirculation and determine if this is influenced by any concomitant coronary disease. We then compare this to the effect of coronary stenoses on the coronary microcirculation.

Physiological Versus Angiographic Guidance for Myocardial Revascularization in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Background Management of coronary artery disease in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation is uncertain. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has never been clinically validated in aortic stenosis. The study aim was to analyze the clinical outcome of FFR-guided revascularization in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Methods and Results Patients with severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease at coronary angiography were included in this retrospective analysis and divided in 2 groups: angiography guided (122/216; 56.5%) versus FFR-guided revascularization (94/216; 43.5%). Patients were clinically followed up and evaluated for the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 2-year follow-up. Most lesions in the FFR group resulted negative according to the conventional 0.80 cutoff value (111/142; 78.2%) and were deferred. The FFR-guided group showed a better major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event-free survival compared with the angio-guided group (92.6% versus 82.0%; hazard ratio, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-1.0; P=0.035). Patients with deferred lesions based on FFR presented better outcome compared with patients who underwent angio-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (91.4% versus 68.1%; hazard ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.6; P=0.001). Conclusions FFR guidance was associated with favorable outcome in this observational study in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Randomized trials are needed to investigate the long-term effects of FFR-guided revascularization against angiographic guidance alone in patients with aortic stenosis.

Fractional flow reserve in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing TAVI: a prospective analysis

OBJECTIVES

To determine the true prevalence of CAD in AS patients, to detect changes of the hemodynamic significance of coronary lesions following TAVI, to explore to what extent FFR-positive CAD might influence outcome and finally to develop a management algorithm for this patient subset.

METHODS

From May 2016 to March 2018, diagnostic coronary angiography was performed in 246 patients before TAVI. In the presence of coronary lesions with a diameter stenosis ≥ 50%, FFR was measured. In patients with positive FFR ≤ 0.80, a control angiography was performed 6-8 weeks after TAVI.

RESULTS

The study cohort was 81.0 ± 6.1 years old, 48.4% of the patients were male. 53.3% had concomitant CAD. 35.9% of these patients underwent PCI before TAVI due to functionally significant left main CAD and/or severe stenosis ≥ 90%. 31 patients underwent FFR measurements in cumulative 38 coronary lesions. Prior to TAVI, a negative FFR could be detected in 18 lesions, whereas a positive FFR was found in entirely 20 lesions. A control angiography and FFR measurement was performed in cumulative 13 lesions. Comparing the FFR values, there was no significant difference (0.77 ± 0.04 vs. 0.76 ± 0.08; p = 0.11).

CONCLUSION

Concomitant CAD was diagnosed in 53.3% of TAVI patients. FFR did not significantly change after TAVI, confirming the validity of FFR to evaluate coronary lesions in this specific clinical setting. Given the low rates of cardiac adverse events, it might therefore be considered to treat coronary stenoses not involving left main and those with a diameter stenosis < 90% after TAVI.

Pathophysiological coronary and microcirculatory flow alterations in aortic stenosis

Regulation of coronary blood flow is maintained through a delicate balance of ventriculoarterial and neurohumoral mechanisms. The aortic valve is integral to the functions of these systems, and disease states that compromise aortic valve integrity have the potential to seriously disrupt coronary blood flow. Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common cause of valvular heart disease requiring medical intervention, and the prevalence and associated socio-economic burden of AS are set to increase with population ageing. Valvular stenosis precipitates a cascade of structural, microcirculatory, and neurohumoral changes, which all lead to impairment of coronary flow reserve and myocardial ischaemia even in the absence of notable coronary stenosis. Coronary physiology can potentially be normalized through interventions that relieve severe AS, but normality is often not immediately achievable and probably requires continued adaptation. Finally, the physiological assessment of coronary artery disease in patients with AS represents an ongoing challenge, as the invasive physiological measures used in current cardiology practice are yet to be validated in this population. This Review discusses the key concepts of coronary pathophysiology in patients with AS through presentation of contemporary basic science and data from animal and human studies.

Coronary Microcirculation in Aortic Stenosis

Aortic stenosis is a heterogeneous disorder. Variations in the pathological and physiological responses to pressure overload are incompletely understood and generate a range of flow and pressure gradient patterns, which ultimately cause varying microvascular effects. The impact of cardiac-coronary coupling depends on these pressure and flow effects. In this article, we explore important concepts concerning cardiac physiology and the coronary microcirculation in aortic stenosis and their impact on myocardial remodeling, aortic valve flow patterns, and clinical progression.