All Resting Physiological Indices May Not Be Equivalent - Comparison Between the Diastolic Pressure Ratio and Resting Full-Cycle Ratio

Diagnostic performances of Nonhyperemic Pressure Ratios and Coronary Angiography-Based Fractional Flow Reserve against conventional Wire-Based Fractional Flow Reserve

BACKGROUND

Nonhyperemic pressure ratios (NHPRs) have been proposed as alternatives to fractional flow reserve (FFR) without induction of hyperemia. More recently, imaging based-FFR estimation, especially coronary angiography-derived FFR (Angio-FFR) measurement, is proposed to estimate wire-based FFR. However, little is known about the diagnostic performance of these indices against conventional FFR.

AIMS

We aimed to assess and compare the diagnostic performance of both NHPRs and coronary Angio-FFR against wire-based conventional FFR.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched for peer-reviewed original articles up to 08/2022. The primary outcomes were the pooled sensitivity and specificity as well as the area under the curve (AUC) of the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve of those indices.

RESULTS

A total of 6693 records were identified after a literature search, including 37 reports for NHPRs and 34 for Angio-FFR. Overall, NHPRs have a lower diagnostic performance in estimating wire-based FFR with an AUC of 0.85 (0.81, 0.88) when compared with Angio-FFR of 0.95 (0.93, 0.97). When all four modalities of NHPRs (iFR, Pd/Pa, DPR, RFR) were compared, those had overlapping AUCs without major differences among each other. Similarly, when the two most commonly used Angio-FFR (QFR, FFR angio ) were compared, those had overlapping AUCs without major differences among each other.

CONCLUSION

Angio-FFR may offer a better estimation of wire-based FFR than NHPRs. Our results support a wider use of Angio-FFR in the cardiac catheterization laboratory to streamline our workflow for coronary physiologic assessment.

CLASSIFICATIONS

FFR,, stable ischemic disease and non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome.

Diagnostic accuracy of diastolic pressure ratio using a pressure microcatheter for intracoronary physiological assessment

Recently, instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) has emerged as an alternative to the fractional flow reserve (FFR) for intracoronary physiological assessment. Although all diastolic resting indices are reportedly identical to the iFR, limited data exist on diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) measured using a microcatheter (dPRmicro). This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of dPRmicro compared to FFR measured using a microcatheter (FFRmicro) in real-world practice for intracoronary physiological assessment. This was a single-center, retrospective, observational study. We identified 103 consecutive suspected angina pectoris patients (107 lesions) who underwent dPRmicro and FFRmicro measurement using the Navvus® catheter at Takasaki Heart Hospital from March 2019 to June 2019. A total of 103 lesions in 103 patients were finally included in the study. The mean FFRmicro and dPRmicro values were 0.80 and 0.88, respectively. With an FFRmicro ≤ 0.80, the dPRmicro showed a diagnostic accuracy of 79.6%, sensitivity of 74.6%, specificity of 87.5%, positive predictive value of 90.4%, and negative predictive value of 68.6%. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.894 (95% confidence interval, 0.833-0.956), and the optimal cut-off value for dPRmicro derived from the ROC analysis was 0.90. dPRmicro and FFRmicro values were discordant in 21/103 cases (20.4%). As a multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed, the male sex (vs. female) had a statistically significant association with a dPRmicro-FFRmicro discordance (OR 4.91; 95% CI, 1.04-23.0; P = 0.044). No other factors were found to be significantly associated with the discordance. In conclusion, dPRmicro measured using a microcatheter had good diagnostic accuracy and correlation with FFRmicro, hence, it can be useful for making revascularization decisions. However, re-studies in larger populations will be needed to better understand the properties of diastolic resting index measured using a microcatheter in clinical settings.

Comparative study of fractional flow reserve and diastolic pressure ratio using a guidewire with a sensor for measuring intravascular pressure

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the correlation and diagnostic agreement between diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) in a Japanese real-world setting.

DESIGN

Prospective multicenter observational study.

METHODS

This study included 100 patients with intermediate coronary artery stenosis at 4 Japanese hospitals. For these lesions, FFR and dPR were measured using a guidewire with a sensor and a monitor to measure intravascular pressure. The correlation and diagnostic agreement between FFR and dPR were assessed. When both FFR and dPR were negative or positive, the results were considered to be concordant. When one was positive and the other was negative, the result was regarded as discordant (positive discordance, FFR > 0.80 and dPR ≤ 0.89; negative discordance, FFR ≤ 0.80 and dPR > 0.89).

RESULTS

Overall, the FFR and dPR were well-correlated (R = 0.841). FFR and dPR were concordant in 89% of cases (concordant normal, 43%; concordant abnormal, 46%) and discordant in 11% (positive discordance, 7%; negative discordance, 4%). No significant difference was observed in the rate of concordant results between patients with and without diabetes mellitus. The diagnostic concordance rate was significantly different among the 3 coronary arteries (right coronary artery, 93.3%; left anterior descending artery, 93.2%; and left circumflex artery, 58.3%; P = .001). Additionally, the rate of concordant results tended to be higher when using intravenous administration of adenosine than when using intracoronary bolus injection of nicorandil (adenosine, 95.1%; nicorandil, 84.7%; P = .103).

CONCLUSION

We found that dPR was highly correlated with FFR, and diagnostic discordance was observed in 11% of the lesions. Several factors, including lesion location and medication for hyperemia, may cause the diagnostic discordance between dPR and FFR.

The impact of coronary microvascular dysfunction on the discordance between fractional flow reserve and resting full-cycle ratio in patients with chronic coronary syndromes

Background

Resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) is an alternative to fractional flow reserve (FFR) for the evaluation of borderline coronary artery lesions. Although FFR and RFR results are discordant in some cases, factors associated with the discordance remain unclear. The role of coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is discussed as a potential mechanism to explain these discrepancies.

Aim

The study aimed to assess concordance between RFR and FFR in a real-life cohort from a high-volume center regarding the role of CMD.

Methods

Consecutive patients with borderline coronary lesions undergoing coronary functional testing for chronic coronary syndromes were included in the study. Measurements of RFR and FFR were performed alongside additional coronary flow reserve (CFR), resistance reserve ratio (RRR), and an index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) measurements. CMD was defined according to the current guideline by either IMR ≥25 or CFR ≤2.0 in vessels with no significant stenosis.

Results

Measurements were performed in 157 coronary arteries, in 101 patients, with a median age of 66 y., 74% male, with prior history of arterial hypertension (96%), dyslipidaemia (91%), and diabetes (40%). The median value of vessel diameter stenosis was 45% according to QCA.

Overall, FFR and RFR values were significantly correlated (r = 0.66, p < 0.001), where positive FFR/negative RFR and negative FFR/positive RFR were observed in 6 (3.8%) and 38 (24.2%) of 157 vessels. The RFR/FFR discrepancy was present in 44 (28%) of measurements. CMD was confirmed in 28 (64%) of vessels with discrepant RFR/FFR and in 46 (41%) of vessels with concordant results (p = 0.01). In discordant RFR/FFR vessels, as compared to concordant ones, significantly lower values of CFR [median 1.95 (IQR: 1.37, 2.30) vs. 2.10 (IQR: 1.50, 3.00), p = 0.030] and RRR [median 2.50 (IQR: 1.60, 3.10) vs. 2.90 IQR (1.90, 3.90), p = 0.048] were observed.

Main predictors of RFR/FFR discrepancy in a univariate regression analysis were: higher age of patients [OR = 1.06 (1.01; 1.10), p = 0.010], presence of CMD [OR = 2.51 (1.23; 5.25), p = 0.012], lower CFR [OR = 1.64 (1.12; 2.56), p = 0.018], and lower RRR values [OR = 1.35 (95% CI: 1.03; 1.83), p = 0.038].

Conclusion

In discrepant RFR/FFR vessels, CMD is more prevalent than in concordant RFR/FFR measurements, which can be driven by lower CFR or RRR values. Further research is needed to confirm this observation.

Diagnostic performance of quantitative flow ratio versus fractional flow reserve and resting full-cycle ratio in intermediate coronary lesions

BACKGROUND

Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel angiography-derived index aimed to assess the functional relevance of coronary stenoses without pressure wires and adenosine. Good diagnostic yield with the hyperemic fractional flow reserve (FFR) have been reported, while data on the comparison of QFR to non-hyperemic pressure ratios (NHPR) are scarce.

METHODS

In this retrospective, observational and single-center study with a large population representative of the real practice, we assessed and compared the diagnostic performance of contrast flow (cQFR) and fixed flow (fQFR) QFR against the NHPR resting full-cyle ratio (RFR) using FFR as reference standard.

RESULTS

A total of 626 lesions from 544 patients were investigated. Mean diameter stenosis, FFR, cQFR, fQFR and RFR were 44.8%, 0.842, 0.847, 0.857 and 0.912, respectively. The correlation between cQFR and FFR was stronger (r = 0.830, P < 0.001) compared to that between FFR and RFR (r = 0.777, P < 0.001) and between cQFR and RFR (r = 0.687, P < 0.001). Using FFR ≤0.80 as reference, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and overall diagnostic accuracy for cQFR were 82%, 95%, 87%, 92%, and 91%, respectively. cQFR displayed a higher area under the curve (AUC) than fQFR and RFR (0.938 vs. 0.891 vs. 0.869, P < 0.01). The good diagnostic yield of cQFR appeared to be maintained in different clinical subsets including female gender, aortic valve stenosis and atrial fibrillation, and in different anatomical subsets including focal and non-focal lesions.

CONCLUSION

cQFR has a high and better diagnostic performance than the NHPR RFR in predicting FFR-based functional significance of coronary stenoses.

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.

Comparison of Resting Full-Cycle Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve in a German Real-World Cohort

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate non-hyperemic resting pressure ratios (NHPRs), especially the novel “resting full-cycle ratio” (RFR; lowest pressure distal to the stenosis/aortic pressure during the entire cardiac cycle), compared to the gold standard fractional flow reserve (FFR) in a “real-world” setting.

Methods: The study included patients undergoing coronary pressure wire studies at one German University Hospital. No patients were excluded based on any baseline or procedural characteristics, except for insufficient quality of traces. The diagnostic performance of four NHPRs vs. FFR ≤ 0.80 was tested. Morphological characteristics of stenoses were analyzed by quantitative coronary angiography.

Results: 617 patients with 712 coronary lesions were included. RFR showed a significant correlation with FFR (r = 0.766, p < 0.01). Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of RFR were 78% (95% confidence interval = 75; 81), 72% (65; 78), 81% (77; 84), 63% (57; 69), and 86% (83; 89). Relevant predictors for discordance of RFR ≤ 0.89/FFR > 0.8 were LAD lesions, peripheral artery disease, age, female sex and non-focal stenoses. Predictors for discordance of RFR > 0.89/FFR ≤ 0.8 included non-LCX lesions, percent diameter stenosis and previous percutaneous coronary intervention in the target vessel. RFR and all other NHPRs were highly correlated with each other.

Conclusion: All NHPRs have a similar correlation with the gold standard FFR and may facilitate the acceptance and implementation of physiological assessments of lesion severity. However, we found ~20% discordant results between NHPRs and FFR in our “all-comers” German cohort.

Anatomical Assessment vs. Pullback REsting full-cycle rAtio (RFR) Measurement for Evaluation of Focal and Diffuse CoronarY Disease: Rationale and Design of the "READY Register"

Background: The morphology and functional severity of coronary stenosis show poor correlation. However, in clinical practice, the visual assessment of the invasive coronary angiography is still the most common means for evaluating coronary disease. The fractional flow reserve (FFR), the coronary flow reserve (CFR), and the resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) are established indices to determine the hemodynamic significance of a coronary stenosis.

Design/Methods: The READY register (NCT04857762) is a prospective, multicentre register of patients who underwent invasive intracoronary FFR and RFR measurement. The main aim of the registry is to compare the visual estimate of coronary lesions and the functional severity of the stenosis assessed by FFR, as well as the RFR pullback. Characterizations of the coronary vessel for predominantly focal, diffuse, or mixed type disease according to visual vs. RFR pullback determination will be compared. The secondary endpoint of the study is a composite of major adverse cardiac events, including death, myocardial infarction, and repeat coronary revascularization at 1 year. These endpoints will be compared in patients with non-ischemic FFR in the subgroup of cases where the local pressure drop indicates a focal lesion according to the definition of ΔRFR > 0.05 (for <25 mm segment length) and in the subgroup without significant ΔRFR. In case of an FFR value above 0.80, an extended physiological analysis is planned to diagnose or exclude microvascular disease using the CFR/FFR index. This includes novel flow dynamic modeling for CFR calculation (CFR_p−3D).

Conclusion: The READY register will define the effect of RFR measurement on visual estimation-based clinical decision-making. It can identify a prognostic value of ΔRFR during RFR pullback, and it would also explore the frequency of microvascular disease in the patient population with FFR > 0.80.

Clinical Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04857762).