Prediction of fractional flow reserve with angiographic DILEMMA score

Hemodynamic Versus Anatomic Assessment of Symptomatic Atherosclerotic Middle Cerebral Artery Stenosis: the Relationship Between Pressure Wire Translesional Gradient and Angiographic Lesion Geometry

Background: Intracranial cerebral atherosclerosis (ICAS) is a leading etiology of ischemic stroke. The diagnosis and assessment of intracranial stenosis are shifting from anatomic to hemodynamic for better risk stratification. However, the relationships between lesion geometry and translesional pressure gradient have not been clearly elucidated.

Methods: Patients with symptomatic unifocal M1 middle cerebral artery (M1-MCA) stenosis were consecutively recruited. The translesional pressure gradient was measured with a pressure wire and was recorded as both mean distal/proximal pressure ratios (Pd/Pa) and translesional pressure difference (Pa–Pd). Lesion geometry measured on angiography was recorded as diameter stenosis, minimal lumen diameter, and lesion length. The correlations between pressure-derived and angiography-derived indices were then analyzed.

Results: Forty-three patients were analyzed. A negative correlation was found between Pd/Pa and diameter stenosis (r = −0.371; p = 0.014) and between Pa – Pd and minimal lumen diameter (r = −0.507; p = 0.001). A positive correlation was found between Pd/Pa and minimal lumen diameter (r = 0.411; p = 0.006) and between Pa – Pd and diameter stenosis (r = 0.466; p = 0.002).

Conclusions: In a highly selected ICAS subgroup, geometric indices derived from angiography correlate significantly with translesional pressure gradient indices. However, the correlation strength is weak-to-moderate, which implies that anatomic assessment could only partly reflect hemodynamic status. Translesional pressure gradient measured by pressure wire may serve as a more predictive marker of ICAS severity. More factors need to be identified in further studies.

Functionally Complete Coronary Revascularisation in Patients Presenting with ST-elevation MI and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

Up to half of patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention of a culprit stenosis in the context of the ST-elevation MI may present with multivessel disease. The presence of non-culprit stenoses have been shown to affect the outcomes of these patients, and the results of the more recent randomised trials highlight the importance of complete coronary revascularisation. In this paper, the authors review the main trials published on the topic and discuss tools for the assessment of non-culprit stenoses, while considering the right time for carrying out a complete coronary revascularisation.

Clinical prediction models of fractional flow reserve: an exploration of the current evidence and appraisal of model performance

Background

Invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) is a standard indicator of coronary stenoses' hemodynamic severity. Clinical prediction models (CPMs) may help differentiate ischemic from non-ischemic lesions without using a pressure wire but by integrating related variables. This approach differs from that of physics-based models. However, it is not yet known which CPMs are the most reliable at detecting hemodynamic significance.

Methods

A systematic review was performed of relevant publications that developed or validated any FFR CPMs from inception to April 2019 in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases by two independent authors. The risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the prediction model risk of the bias assessment tool (PROBAST).

Results

A total of 11 unique CPMs and 5 subsequent external validation studies were identified. The prevalence of hemodynamically significant lesions (FFR ≤0.80) across the studies had a median of 37.1% (range: 20.7-68.0%). Lesion length, percent diameter stenosis, and minimal lumen diameter were the three most frequently used variables in the CPMs. Of the 11 FFR CPMs, 9 (82%) exhibited strong discrimination [area under the curve (AUC) >0.75], and 5 (45%) had been subject to external validation; however, calibration was only available for 3 models (27%). There was a high degree of applicability; however, none of the studies was assessed as having a low risk of bias. A CPM was identified that had undergone rigorous validation and calibration: the DILEMMA score (three validations; median AUC, 0.83).

Conclusions

Almost half of the existing FFR CPMs had been externally validated. Due to their good discrimination abilities, these FFR CPMs are useful tools that could reduce the need for invasive hemodynamic measurements. Future research that adheres to methodological guidelines should be undertaken to develop high-quality models in this setting. (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019125011).

Application of the DILEMMA score to improve lesion selection for invasive physiological assessment

OBJECTIVES

We sought to assess the validity of the DILEMMA score against instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and evaluate its utility in rationalizing the number of patients referred for invasive physiological assessment.

BACKGROUND

The DILEMMA score is a validated angiographic scoring tool incorporating minimal lumen diameter, lesion length and subtended myocardial area that has been shown to predict the functional significance of lesions as assessed by fractional flow reserve (FFR).

METHODS

Patients in the DEFINE-FLAIR study who had coronary stenosis of intermediate severity were randomized to either FFR or iFR. DILEMMA score was calculated retrospectively on a subset of this cohort by operators blinded to FFR or iFR values.

RESULTS

Three hundred and forty-six lesions (181 assessed by FFR; 165 by iFR) from 259 patients (mean age 66.0 years, 79% male) were included. A DILEMMA score ≤ 2 had a negative predictive value of 96.3% and 95.7% for identifying lesions with FFR >0.80 and iFR >0.89, respectively. A DILEMMA score ≥ 9 had a positive predictive value of 88.9% and 100% for identifying lesions with FFR ≤0.80 and iFR ≤0.89, respectively. The receiver operating characteristic area under the curve values for DILEMMA score to predict FFR ≤0.80 and iFR ≤0.89 were 0.83 (95% CI 0.77-0.90) and 0.82 (0.75-0.89) respectively. A DILEMMA score ≤ 2 or ≥9 occurred in 172 of the 346 lesions (49.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Using DILEMMA score in patients with coronary stenosis of intermediate severity may reduce the need for pressure wire use, offering potential cost-savings and minimizing the risks associated with invasive physiological lesion assessment.