Long-Term Changes in Invasive Physiological Pressure Indices of Stenosis Severity Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

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.

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.

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.

Integrated Assessment of Computational Coronary Physiology From a Single Angiographic View in Patients Undergoing TAVI

BACKGROUND

Angiography-derived computational physiology is an appealing alternative to pressure-wire coronary physiology assessment. However, little is known about its reliability in the setting of severe aortic stenosis. This study sought to provide an integrated assessment of epicardial and microvascular coronary circulation by means of single-view angiography-derived physiology in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

METHODS

Pre-TAVI angiographic projections of 198 stenotic coronary arteries (123 patients) were analyzed by means of Murray's law-based quantitative flow ratio and angiography microvascular resistance. Wire-based reference measurements were available for comparison: fractional flow reserve (FFR) in all cases, instantaneous wave-free ratio in 148, and index of microvascular resistance in 42 arteries.

RESULTS

No difference in terms of the number of ischemia-causing stenoses was detected between FFR ≤0.80 and Murray's law-based quantitative flow ratio ≤0.80 (19.7% versus 19.2%; P=0.899), while this was significantly higher when instantaneous wave-free ratio ≤0.89 (44.6%; P=0.001) was used. The accuracy of Murray's law-based quantitative flow ratio ≤0.80 in predicting pre-TAVI FFR ≤0.80 was significantly higher than the accuracy of instantaneous wave-free ratio ≤0.89 (93.4% versus 77.0%; P=0.001), driven by a higher positive predictive value (86.9% versus 50%). Similar findings were observed when considering post-TAVI FFR ≤0.80 as reference. In 82 cases with post-TAVI angiographic projections, Murray's law-based quantitative flow ratio values remained stable, with a low rate of reclassification of stenosis significance (9.9%), similar to FFR and instantaneous wave-free ratio. Angiography microvascular resistance demonstrated a significant correlation (Rho=0.458; P=0.002) with index of microvascular resistance, showing an area under the curve of 0.887 (95% CI, 0.752-0.964) in predicting index of microvascular resistance ≥25.

CONCLUSIONS

Angiography-derived physiology provides a valid, reliable, and systematic assessment of the coronary circulation in a complex scenario, such as severe aortic stenosis.

The effects of cardiac structure, valvular regurgitation, and left ventricular diastolic dysfunction on the diagnostic accuracy of Murray law-based quantitative flow ratio

Objective

The study aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of Murray law-based quantitative flow ratio (μQFR) from a single angiographic view in patients with abnormal cardiac structure, left ventricular diastolic dysfunction, and valvular regurgitation.

Background

μQFR is a novel fluid dynamics method for deriving fractional flow reserve (FFR). In addition, current studies of μQFR mainly analyzed patients with normal cardiac structure and function. The accuracy of μQFR when patients had abnormal cardiac structure, left ventricular diastolic dysfunction, and valvular regurgitation has not been clear.

Methods

This study retrospectively analyzed 261 patients with 286 vessels that underwent both FFR and μQFR prior to intervention. The cardiac structure and function were measured using echocardiography. Pressure wire-derived FFR ≤0.80 was defined as hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis.

Results

μQFR had a moderate correlation with FFR (r = 0.73, p < 0.001), and the Bland-Altman plot presented no difference between the μQFR and FFR (0.006 ± 0.075, p = 0.192). With FFR as the standard, the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of μQFR were 94.06% (90.65-96.50), 82.56% (72.87-89.90), 99.00% (96.44-99.88), 97.26 (89.91-99.30), and 92.96% (89.29-95.44), respectively. The concordance of μQFR/FFR was not associated with abnormal cardiac structure, valvular regurgitation (aortic valve, mitral valve, and tricuspid valve), and left ventricular diastolic function. Coronary hemodynamics showed no difference between normality and abnormality of cardiac structure and left ventricular diastolic function. Coronary hemodynamics demonstrated no difference among valvular regurgitation (none, mild, moderate, or severe).

Conclusion

μQFR showed an excellent agreement with FFR. The effect of abnormal cardiac structure, valvular regurgitation, and left ventricular diastolic function did not correlate with the diagnostic accuracy of μQFR. Coronary hemodynamics showed no difference in patients with abnormal cardiac structure, valvular regurgitation, and left ventricular diastolic function.

Long-term changes in coronary physiology after aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

The detrimental effects of long-standing severe aortic stenosis (AS) often include left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and exhaustion of coronary flow reserve (CFR), the reversibility of which is unclear after valve replacement.

AIMS

Our aims were to 1) investigate whether CFR in the left anterior descending artery (LAD) would improve following valve replacement, and if the change was related to changes in hyperaemic coronary flow (QLAD) and minimal microvascular resistance (Rμ,LAD); and 2) investigate the relationship between changes in CFR and changes in left ventricular mass (LVM) and stroke work (LVSW).

METHODS

We measured intracoronary bolus thermodilution-derived CFR, and continuous thermodilution-derived QLAD and Rμ,LAD before and 6 months after aortic valve replacement. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was used to quantify left ventricular anatomy and function for the calculation of LVM and LVSW.  Results: Thirty-four patients were included (17 patients had transcatheter aortic valve implantation; 14 had surgical valve replacement with a bioprosthesis and 3 with a mechanical prosthesis) who underwent invasive assessment in the LAD. CFR increased from 2.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 1.5-3.3) at baseline to 3.1 (IQR 2.2-5.1) at follow-up (p=0.005), despite no significant change in QLAD (230±106 mL/min to 250±101 mL/min; p=0.26) or Rμ,LAD (347 [IQR 247-463] to 287 [IQR 230-456]; p=0.20). When indexed for LVM, QLAD was 39% (IQR 8-98%) higher at follow-up compared with baseline (p<0.001). The improvement in CFR was correlated with ΔLVSW, r= -0.39; p=0.047.   Conclusions: CFR in the LAD increased significantly at follow-up although global hyperaemic flow and minimal microvascular resistance remained unchanged. Thus, a decrease in resting flow was the cause of CFR improvement. CFR improvement was associated with reduction in LVSW.

Discordance between fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio in patients with severe aortic stenosis: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Discordance between fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) occurs in approximately 20 % of cases. However, no studies have reported the discordance in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic discordance between FFR and iFR in patients with severe AS.

METHODS

We examined 140 consecutive patients with severe AS (164 intermediate coronary artery stenosis vessels). FFR and iFR were calculated in four quadrants based on threshold FFR and iFR values of ≤0.8 and ≤0.89, respectively (Group 1: iFR >0.89, FFR >0.80; Group 2: iFR ≤0.89, FFR >0.80; Group 3: iFR >0.89, FFR ≤0.80; and Group 4: iFR ≤0.89, FFR ≤0.80). Concordant groups were Groups 1 and 4, and discordant groups were Groups 2 and 3. Positive and negative discordant groups were Groups 3 and 2, respectively.

RESULTS

The median (Q1, Q3) FFR and iFR were 0.84 (0.76, 0.88) and 0.85 (0.76, 0.91), respectively. Discordance was observed in 48 vessels (29.3 %). In the discordant group, negative discordance (Group 2: iFR ≤0.89 and FFR >0.80) was predominant (45 cases, 93.6 %). Multivariate analysis showed that the left anterior descending artery [odds ratio (OR), 3.88; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 1.54-9.79, p = 0.004] and peak velocity ≥5.0 m/s (OR, 3.21; 95%CI: 1.36-7.57, p = 0.008) were independently associated with negative discordance (FFR >0.8 and iFR ≤0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe AS, discordance between FFR and iFR was predominantly negative and observed in 29.3 % of vessels. The left anterior descending artery and peak velocity ≥5.0 m/s were independently associated with negative discordance.

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.

Coronary physiology in the catheterisation laboratory: an A to Z practical guide

Coronary revascularisation, either percutaneous or surgical, aims to improve coronary flow and relieve myocardial ischaemia. The decision-making process in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) remains largely based on invasive coronary angiography (ICA), even though until recently ICA could not assess the functional significance of coronary artery stenoses. Invasive wire-based approaches for physiological evaluations were developed to properly assess the ischaemic relevance of epicardial CAD. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and later, instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), were shown to improve clinical outcomes in several patient subsets when used for coronary revascularisation guidance or deferral and for procedural optimisation of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) results. Despite accumulating evidence and positive guideline recommendations, the adoption of invasive physiology has remained quite low, mainly due to technical and economic issues as well as to operator-resistance to change. Coronary image-based computational physiology has been recently developed, with promising results in terms of accuracy and a reduction in computational time, costs, radiation exposure and risks for the patient. Lastly, the integration of intracoronary imaging and physiology allows for individualised PCI treatment, aiming at complete relief of ischaemia through optimised morpho-functional immediate procedural results. Instead of a conventional state-of-the-art review, this A to Z dictionary attempts to provide a practical guide for the application of coronary physiology in the catheterisation laboratory, exploring several methods, their pitfalls, and useful tips and tricks.

Coronary Artery Disease in Patients Undergoing Transvalvular Aortic Valve Implantation

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is common in patients with severe aortic stenosis. With the advent of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) as a therapeutic option, management of CAD in such patients has undergone a revolution. Younger patients are now candidates for treatment, and have a greater life-time probability of requiring post-TAVI coronary access. Considerations include pre-procedural assessment and revascularisation, procedural planning to avoid coronary obstruction as well as optimisation of post-procedural coronary access. The authors review the challenges of managing CAD in TAVI patients, shed light on the evidence base, and provide guidance on how to optimise management.

Coronary physiology to guide treatment of coronary artery disease in a patient with severe aortic valve stenosis: friend or foe? A case report

Background

Severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) is the most frequent valve pathology in the developed world requiring intervention. Due to common factors in pathogenesis, patients with AS frequently have concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD). Determining the relative contribution of each component to the disease state is not easy as there is much overlap in complaints. Moreover, severe AS interferes with the haemodynamic assessment of intermediate coronary lesions.

Case summary

In this case report we describe the presentation and management of an 84-year-old patient, with a severely degenerated aortic valve bioprosthesis and an intermediate coronary artery lesion, presenting with acute decompensated heart failure and chest pain. Initial invasive haemodynamic assessment of the coronary lesion provided challenging findings and a second catheterization and intervention was needed to free the patient from his chest pain.

Discussion

Optimal assessment and treatment of CAD before valve replacement are controversial. Aortic valve stenosis on itself can lead to subendocardial ischaemia with subsequent angina pectoris. Simultaneously, AS can significantly affect coronary haemodynamics, hereby interfering with intra-coronary haemodynamic assessment of co-existing coronary lesions. Currently used coronary physiological indices are not validated in the AS population and valve replacement has variable effects on the fractional flow reserve and commonly used resting indices, such as the resting full-cycle ratio. Further research on this topic is needed and an overview of currently running studies that will advance this field significantly is provided.

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.