Direct wire pacing during measurement of fractional flow reserve: A randomized proof-of-concept noninferiority crossover trial

Background

Adenosine administration for fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement may induce heart pauses.

Aims

To assess the accuracy and tolerability of direct wire pacing (DWP) during measurement of FFR.

Methods

Adults with at least one intermediate coronary artery stenosis (40%-80%) were consecutively enrolled between June 2021 and February 2022 in this randomized, noninferiority, crossover trial (NCT04970082) carried out in France. DWP was applied (DWP) or not (standard method) through the pressure guidewire used for FFR measurement during adenosine-induced maximal hyperaemia. Subjects were randomly assigned to the allocation sequence (DWP first or standard first). A 2-minute washout period was observed between the two FFR measurements performed for each stenosis. The primary endpoint was the reproducibility of FFR measurements between methods.

Results

A total of 150 focal lesions, presented by 94 subjects, were randomized (ratio: 1:1). The FFR values obtained with each method were nearly identical (R = 0.98, p = 0.005). The mean FFR difference of 0.00054 (95% confidence interval: 0.004 to 0.003) showed the noninferiority of FFR measurement with DWP vs. that with the standard method. Higher levels of chest discomfort were reported with DWP than with the standard method (0.61 ± 0.84 vs. 1.05 ± 0.89, p < 0.001), and a correlation was observed between the electrical sensations reported with DWP and chest discomfort (p < 0.001). Pauses (n = 20/148 lesions) were observed with the standard method, but did not correlate with chest discomfort (p = 0.21). No pauses were observed with DWP.

Conclusions

DWP during FFR measurement resulted in accurate and reproducible FFR values, and eliminated the pauses induced by adenosine.

Prognostic value of post-percutaneous coronary intervention diastolic pressure ratio

Aim

To evaluate the distribution of a generic diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) after angiographically successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and to assess its association with the 2‑year incidence of target vessel failure (TVF), defined as a composite of cardiac mortality, target vessel revascularisation, target vessel myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis.

Methods

The dPR SEARCH study is a post hoc analysis of the prospective single-centre FFR-SEARCH registry, in which physiological assessment was performed after angiographically successful PCI in a total of 1000 patients, using a dedicated microcatheter. dPR was calculated offline with recently validated software in a subset of 735 patients.

Results

Mean post-PCI dPR was 0.95 ± 0.06. Post-PCI dPR was ≤ 0.89 in 15.2% of the patients. The cumulative incidence of TVF at 2‑year follow-up was 9.4% in patients with a final post-PCI dPR ≤ 0.89 as compared to 6.1% in patients with a post-PCI dPR > 0.89 (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for dPR ≤ 0.89: 1.53; 95% CI 0.74–3.13; p = 0.249). dPR ≤ 0.89 was associated with significantly higher cardiac mortality at 2 years; adjusted HR 2.40; 95% CI 1.01–5.68; p = 0.047.

Conclusions

In a real-world setting, despite optimal angiographic PCI results, 15.2% of the patients had a final post-PCI dPR of ≤ 0.89, which was associated with a higher incidence of TVF and a significantly higher cardiac mortality rate.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-022-01680-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Multicenter clinical evaluation of a piezoresistive-MEMS-sensor rapid-exchange pressure microcatheter system for fractional flow reserve measurement

Objectives

This multicenter, prospective clinical study investigates whether the microelectromechanical‐systems‐(MEMS)‐sensor pressure microcatheter (MEMS‐PMC) is comparable to a conventional pressure wire in fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement.

Background

As a conventional tool for FFR measurement, pressure wires (PWs) still have some limitations such as suboptimal handling characteristics and unable to maintain the wire position during pullback assessment. Recently, a MEMS‐PMC compatible with any 0.014″ guidewire is developed. Compared with the existing optical‐sensor PMC, this MEMS‐PMC has smaller profiles at both the lesion crossing and sensor packaging areas.

Methods

Two hundred and forty‐two patients with visually 30–70% coronary stenosis were enrolled at four centers. FFR was measured first with the MEMS‐PMC, and then with the PW. The primary endpoint was the Bland–Altman mean bias between the MEMS‐PMC and PW FFR.

Results

From the 224‐patient per‐protocol data, quantitative coronary angiography showed 17.9% and 55.9% vessels had diameter < 2.5 mm and stenosis >50%, respectively. The two systems' mean bias was −0.01 with [−0.08, 0.06] 95% limits‐of‐agreement. Using PW FFR≤0.80 as cutoff, the MEMS‐PMC per‐vessel diagnostic accuracy was 93.4% [95% confidence interval: 89.4–96.3%]. The MEMS‐PMC's success rate was similar to that of PW (97.5 vs. 96.3%, p = .43) with no serious adverse event, and its clinically‐significant (>0.03) drift rate was 43% less (9.5 vs. 16.7%, p = .014).

Conclusions

Our study showed the MEMS‐PMC is safe to use and has a minimal bias equal to the resolution of current FFR systems. Given the MEMS‐PMC's high measurement accuracy and rapid‐exchange nature, it may become an attractive new tool facilitating routine coronary physiology assessment.

Extent of the difference between microcatheter and pressure wire-derived fractional flow reserve and its relation to optical coherence tomography-derived parameters

Background

Although previous studies demonstrated that microcatheter-derived fractional flow reserve (mc-FFR) tends to overestimate lesion severity compared to pressure wire-derived FFR (pw-FFR), the clinical utility of mc-FFR remains obscure. The extent of differences between the two FFR systems and its relation to a lesion-specific parameter remain unknown. In this study, we sought to compare mc-FFR with pw-FFR and determine the lower and upper mc-FFR cut-offs predicting ischemic and non-ischemic stenosis, using an ischemic and a clinical FFR threshold of 0.75 and 0.80 as references, respectively. We further explored optical coherence tomography (OCT) parameters influencing the difference in FFR between the two systems.

Methods and results

In this study, 44 target vessels with intermediate de novo coronary artery lesion in 36 patients with stable ischemic heart disease were evaluated with mc-FFR, pw-FFR and OCT. Bland-Altman plots for mc-FFR versus pw-FFR showed a bias of −0.04 for lower mc-FFR values compared to pw-FFR values. The mc-FFR cut-off values of 0.73 and 0.79 corresponded to the 0.75 ischemic pw-FFR and 0.80 clinical pw-FFR thresholds with high predictive values, respectively. The differences in the two FFR measurements (pw-FFR minus mc-FFR) were negatively correlated with OCT-derived minimum lumen area (MLA) (R = −0.359, p = 0.011). The OCT-derived MLA of 1.36 mm² was a cut-off value for predicting the clinically significant difference between the two FFR measurements defined as >0.03.

Conclusion

Mc-FFR is clinically useful when the specific cut-offs are applied. An OCT-derived MLA accounts for the clinically significant difference in FFR between the two systems.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Microcatheter Derived Fractional Flow Reserve

Microcatheter derived fractional flow reserve (FFR_MC) system has an increased profile compared with pressure-wire derived fractional flow reserve (FFR_W). Consequently, the FFR_MC system itself may increase the degree of coronary artery stenosis and lower the measured FFR value. This can affect the diagnostic accuracy of the FFR_MC system and inadvertently result in erroneous therapy for patients. Our aim was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy FFR_MC measurements and provide a means for clinicians to interpret individual FFR_MC results with respect to FFR_W. Correlation between FFR measurement techniques was analyzed in this lesion level analysis of 413 patients and 441 lesions from 6 studies. The reference standard to determine physiological significant stenosis was FFR_W value ≤0.80. The mean values for FFR_MC and FFR_W were 0.80 ± 0.11 and 0.83 ± 0.09, respectively. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a bias toward overestimation of FFR by FFR_MC (bias, -0.03 [0.05]). The overall lesion level diagnostic accuracy of the FFR_MC system was 80.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 76.2% to 84.0%). The diagnostic accuracy for FFR_MC values <0.75, 0.75 to 0.85 and >0.85 were 83.7% (95% CI 71.4% to 92.4%), 72.3% (95% CI 59.8% to 75.6%), and 99.2% (95% CI 94.8% to 99.8%), respectively. Using the FFR_W threshold of ≤0.80, 16.3% of lesions would have had inappropriate revascularization according to FFR_MC measurements. Receiver-operating characteristics suggested the optimal cut-off value of FFR_MC to determine ischemia was 0.78. In conclusion, the diagnostic accuracy of FFR_MC varies markedly across the spectrum of disease with marked deterioration for values between 0.75 and 0.85. This may result in clinicians to inadvertently revascularize patients with FFR measurements >0.80.

Fractional flow reserve derived from microcatheters versus standard pressure wires: a stenosis-level meta-analysis

Aims

To determine the agreement between sensor-tipped microcatheter (MC) and pressure wire (PW)-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR).

Methods and results

Studies comparing FFR obtained from MC (FFRMC, Navvus Microcatheter System, ACIST Medical Systems, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, USA) versus standard PW (FFRPW) were identified, and a meta-analysis of numerical and categorical agreement was performed. The relative levels of drift and device failure of MC and PW systems from each study were assessed. Six studies with 440 lesions (413 patients) were included. The mean overall bias between FFRMC and FFRPW was -0.029 (FFRMC lower). Bias and variance were greater for lesions with lower FFRPW (p<0.001). Using a cut-off of 0.80, 18 % of lesions were reclassified by FFRMC versus FFRPW (with 15 % being false positives). The difference in reported drift between FFRPW and FFRMC was small. Device failure was more common with MC than PW (7.1% vs 2%).

Conclusion

FFRMC systematically overestimates lesion severity, with increased bias in more severe lesions. Using FFRMC changes revascularisation guidance in approximately one out of every five cases. PW drift was similar between systems. Device failure was higher with MC.