Association between fractional flow reserve, instantaneous wave-free ratio and dobutamine stress echocardiography in patients with stable coronary artery disease

Patients with Moderate Non-Culprit Coronary Lesions of Recent Acute Coronary Syndrome

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement was compared to dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) instable angina (SA) with stable coronary lesion (s) (SCL (s) ) in a few trials; however, similar comparisons in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with non-culprit lesion (s) (NCL (s) ) are lacking. Our objectives were to prospectively evaluate the diagnostic performance of FFR with two different cutoff values (< 0.80 and < 0.75) relative to DSE in moderate (30%-70% diameter stenosis) NCLs (ACS group) and to compare these observations with those measured in SCLs (SA group). One hundred seventy-five consecutive patients with SA (n = 86) and ACS (n = 89) with 225 coronary lesions (109 SCLs and 116 NCLs) were enrolled. In contrast to the ACS cohort in SA patients, normal DSE was associated with higher FFR values compared to those with abnormal DSE (P = 0.051 versus P = 0.006). In addition, in the SA group, a significant correlation was observed between DSE (regional wall motion score index at peak stress) and FFR (r = -0.290; P = 0.002), whereas a similar association was absent (r = -0.029; P = 0.760) among ACS patients. In the SA group, decreasing the FFR cutoff value (< 0.80 versus < 0.75) improved the concordance of FFR with DSE (70.6% versus 81.7%) without altering its discriminatory power (area under the curve; 0.68 versus 0.63; P = 0.369), whereas in the ACS group, concordance remained similar (69.0% versus 71.6%) and discriminatory power decreased (0.62 versus 0.51; P = 0.049), respectively. In conclusion, lesion-specific FFR assessment may have different relevance in patients with moderate NCLs than in patients with SCLs.

Stress echocardiography in coronary artery disease: a practical guideline from the British Society of Echocardiography

Stress echocardiography is an established technique for assessing coronary artery disease. It has primarily been used for the diagnosis and assessment of patients presenting with chest pain in whom there is an intermediate probability of coronary artery disease. In addition, it is used for risk stratification and to guide revascularisation in patients with known ischaemic heart disease. Although cardiac computed tomography has recently been recommended in the United Kingdom as the first-line investigation in patients presenting for the first time with atypical or typical angina, stress echocardiography continues to have an important role in the assessment of patients with lesions of uncertain functional significance and patients with known ischaemic heart disease who represent with chest pain. In this guideline from the British Society of Echocardiography, the indications and recommended protocols are outlined for the assessment of ischaemic heart disease by stress echocardiography.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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