Applied coronary physiology for planning and guidance of percutaneous coronary interventions. A clinical consensus statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) of the European Society of Cardiology

The clinical value of fractional flow reserve and non-hyperaemic pressure ratios are well established in determining an indication for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). In addition, over the last 5 years we have witnessed a shift towards the use of physiology to enhance procedural planning, assess post-PCI functional results, and guide PCI optimisation. In this regard, clinical studies have reported compelling data supporting the use of longitudinal vessel analysis, obtained with pressure guidewire pullbacks, to better understand how obstructive CAD contributes to myocardial ischaemia, to establish the likelihood of functionally successful PCI, to identify the presence and location of residual flow-limiting stenoses and to predict long-term outcomes. The introduction of new functional coronary angiography tools, which merge angiographic information with fluid dynamic equations to deliver information equivalent to intracoronary pressure measurements, are now available and potentially also applicable to these endeavours. Furthermore, the ability of longitudinal vessel analysis to predict the functional results of stenting has played an integral role in the evolving field of simulated PCI. Nevertheless, it is important to have an awareness of the value and challenges of physiology-guided PCI in specific clinical and anatomical contexts. The main aim of this European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions clinical consensus statement is to offer up-to-date evidence and expert opinion on the use of applied coronary physiology for procedural PCI planning, disease pattern recognition and post-PCI optimisation.

Potential value of saline-induced Pd/Pa ratio in patients with coronary artery stenosis

Background

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the current gold standard for identifying myocardial ischemia in individuals with coronary artery stenosis. However, FFR is not penetrated as much worldwide due to time consumption, costs associated with adenosine, FFR-related discomfort, and complications. Resting physiological indexes may be widely accepted alternatives to FFR, while the discrepancies with FFR were found in up to 20% of lesions. The saline-induced Pd/Pa ratio (SPR) is a new simplified option for evaluating coronary stenosis. However, the clinical implication of SPR remains unclear.

Objectives

In the present study, we aimed to compare the accuracies of SPR and resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) and to investigate the incremental value of SPR in clinical practice.

Methods

In this multicenter prospective study, 112 coronary lesions (105 patients) were evaluated by SPR, RFR, and FFR.

Results

The overall median age was 71 years, and 84.8% were men. SPR was correlated more strongly with FFR than with RFR (r = 0.874 vs. 0.713, respectively; p < 0.001). Using FFR < 0.80 as the reference standard variable, the area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve for SPR was superior to that of RFR (0.932 vs. 0.840, respectively; p = 0.009).

Conclusion

Saline-induced Pd/Pa ratio predicted FFR more accurately than RFR. SPR could be an alternative method for evaluating coronary artery stenosis and further investigation including elucidation of the mechanism of SPR is needed (225 words).

Comparative analysis of instantaneous wave-free ratio and quantitative real-time myocardial contrast echocardiography for the assessment of myocardial perfusion

Background and hypothesis

The field of coronary artery physiology is developing rapidly and changing the practice of interventional cardiology. A new functional evaluation technique using the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) has become an alternative to fractional flow reserve. Future research studies need to determine whether physiological indicators play a role in evaluating myocardial perfusion in the catheter room.

Materials and methods

Thirty-eight patients scheduled for coronary angiography and iFR evaluation underwent a real-time myocardial contrast echocardiography (RT-MCE) examination at rest. The myocardial perfusion parameters (A, β, and A × β) on the myocardial perfusion curve were quantitatively analyzed using Q-Lab software. Coronary angiography and iFR assessment were completed within 1 week after the RT-MCE examination in all patients. Correlation analysis was used to identify iFR- and MCE-related indicators. The sensitivity and specificity of iFR in the quantitative detection of coronary microcirculation were obtained.

Results

The correlation coefficients between iFR and A, β, and A × β were 0.81, 0.66, and 0.82, respectively. The cut-off value for iFR was 0.85 for microvascular ischemia detection, while the sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of myocardial perfusion were 90.7 and 89.9%, respectively. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve area for iFR was 0.946 in the segments related to myocardial blood flow.

Conclusion

The iFR is an effective tool for detecting myocardial microcirculation perfusion, with satisfactory diagnostic performance and a demonstrated role in physiological indices used for the perfusion assessment.

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.

The Role of Coronary Physiology in Contemporary Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

Invasive assessment of coronary physiology has radically changed the paradigm of myocardial revascularization in patients with coronary artery disease. Despite the prognostic improvement associated with ischemia-driven revascularization strategy, functional assessment of angiographic intermediate epicardial stenosis remains largely underused in clinical practice. Multiple tools have been developed or are under development in order to reduce the invasiveness, cost, and extra procedural time associated with the invasive assessment of coronary physiology. Besides epicardial stenosis, a growing body of evidence highlights the role of coronary microcirculation in regulating coronary flow with consequent pathophysiological and clinical and prognostic implications. Adequate assessment of coronary microcirculation function and integrity has then become another component of the decision-making algorithm for optimal diagnosis and treatment of coronary syndromes. This review aims at providing a comprehensive description of tools and techniques currently available in the catheterization laboratory to obtain a thorough and complete functional assessment of the entire coronary tree (both for the epicardial and microvascular compartments).

Adoption and patterns of use of invasive physiological assessment of coronary artery disease in a large cohort of 40821 real-world procedures over a 12-year period

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Use of invasive physiological assessment in patients with coronary artery disease varies widely and is perceived to be low. We aimed to examine adoption rates as well as patterns and determinants of use in an unselected population undergoing invasive coronary angiography over a long time frame.

METHODS

We retrospectively determined the per-procedure prevalence of physiological assessment in 40821 coronary cases performed between 2007 and 2018 in two large-volume centers. Adoption was examined according to procedure type and patient- and operator-related variables. Its association with relevant scientific landmarks, such as the release of clinical trial results and practice guidelines, was also assessed.

RESULTS

Overall adoption was low, ranging from 0.6% in patients undergoing invasive coronary angiography due to underlying valve disease, to 6% in the setting of stable coronary artery disease (CAD); it was 3.1% in patients sustaining an acute coronary syndrome. Of scientific landmarks, FAME 1, the long-term results of FAME 2 and the 2014 European myocardial revascularization guidelines were associated with changes in practice. Publication of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) trials had no influence on adoption rates, except for a higher proportion of iFR use. In 42.9% of stable CAD patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention there was no objective non-invasive evidence of ischemia, nor was physiological assessment performed. Younger operator age (4.5% vs. 4.0% vs. 0.9% for ages <40, 40-55 and >55 years, respectively; p<0.001) and later time of procedure during the day (2.9% between 6 and 8 p.m. vs. 4.4% at other times) were independent correlates of use of invasive physiology.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms the low use of invasive physiology in routine practice. The availability of resting indices did not increase adoption. Strategies are warranted to promote guideline implementation and to improve patient care and clinical outcomes.

Physiological assessment after percutaneous coronary intervention: the hard truth

Physiologically guided revascularization, using Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) or instantaneous wave free ratio (iFR) has been demonstrated to be associated with better long-term outcomes compared to an angiographically-guided strategy, mainly avoiding inappropriate coronary stenting and its associated adverse events. On the contrary, the role of invasive physiological assessment after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is much less well established. However, a large body of evidence suggests that a relevant proportion of patients undergoing PCI with a satisfying angiographic result show instead a suboptimal functional product with a potentially negative prognostic impact. For this reason, many efforts have been focused to identify interventional strategies to physiologically optimize PCI. Measuring the functional result after as PCI, especially when performed after a physiological assessment, implies that the operator is ready to accept the hard truth of an unsatisfactory physiological result despite angiographically optimal and, consequently, to optimize the product with some additional effort. The aim of this review is to bridge this gap in knowledge by better defining the paradigm shift of invasive physiological assessment from a simple tool for deciding whether an epicardial stenosis has to be treated to a thoroughly physiological approach to PCI with the suggestion of a practical flow chart.

Adoption and patterns of use of invasive physiological assessment of coronary artery disease in a large cohort of 40821 real-world procedures over a 12-year period

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Use of invasive physiological assessment in patients with coronary artery disease varies widely and is perceived to be low. We aimed to examine adoption rates as well as patterns and determinants of use in an unselected population undergoing invasive coronary angiography over a long time frame.

METHODS

We retrospectively determined the per-procedure prevalence of physiological assessment in 40821 coronary cases performed between 2007 and 2018 in two large-volume centers. Adoption was examined according to procedure type and patient- and operator-related variables. Its association with relevant scientific landmarks, such as the release of clinical trial results and practice guidelines, was also assessed.

RESULTS

Overall adoption was low, ranging from 0.6% in patients undergoing invasive coronary angiography due to underlying valve disease, to 6% in the setting of stable coronary artery disease (CAD); it was 3.1% in patients sustaining an acute coronary syndrome. Of scientific landmarks, FAME 1, the long-term results of FAME 2 and the 2014 European myocardial revascularization guidelines were associated with changes in practice. Publication of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) trials had no influence on adoption rates, except for a higher proportion of iFR use. In 42.9% of stable CAD patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention there was no objective non-invasive evidence of ischemia, nor was physiological assessment performed. Younger operator age (4.5% vs. 4.0% vs. 0.9% for ages <40, 40-55 and >55 years, respectively; p<0.001) and later time of procedure during the day (2.9% between 6 and 8 p.m. vs. 4.4% at other times) were independent correlates of use of invasive physiology.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms the low use of invasive physiology in routine practice. The availability of resting indices did not increase adoption. Strategies are warranted to promote guideline implementation and to improve patient care and clinical outcomes.

Quantitative flow ratio as a new tool for angiography-based physiological evaluation of coronary artery disease: a review

The functional evaluation of coronary stenoses has obtained important clinical results in recent years, resulting in strong guideline recommendations. Nonetheless, the use of coronary wire-based functional evaluation has not yet become part of the routine in catheterization laboratories for several reasons, including the need to advance a wire into the coronary vessel to interrogate the stenosis. Angiography-derived indexes have been introduced to expand the current use of physiology to estimate the functional meaning of a stenosis on the basis of angiographic data only. The most studied and validated angiography-derived index is certainly the quantitative flow ratio. This article will summarize the basics of the quantitative flow ratio, the related validation studies and its current and future applications.

Contrast medium Pd/Pa ratio in comparison to fractional flow reserve, quantitative flow ratio and instantaneous wave-free ratio for evaluation of intermediate coronary lesions

Introduction

Contrast medium Pd/Pa ratio (cFFR) was introduced as an alternative to fractional flow reserve (FFR).

Aim

To assess the accuracy of cFFR in predicting of FFR, quantitative flow ratio (QFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR).

Material and methods

Resting Pd/Pa, cFFR, FFR, QFR, and iFR were measured in 110 intermediate coronary lesions. cFFR was obtained after intracoronary injection of contrast medium. FFR was measured after the intravenous administration of adenosine. QFR was derived from fixed empiric hyperemic flow velocity based on coronary angiography. iFR was calculated by measuring the resting pressure gradient across a coronary lesion during diastole.

Results

Forty-four patients with 110 intermediate coronary lesions were enrolled. Mean baseline Pd/Pa was 0.93 ±0.05. Mean cFFR value was similar to FFR value (0.83 ±0.09 vs. 0.81 ±0.09; p = 0.13) and QFR (0.81 ±0.1; p = 0.69) and iFR (0.90 ±0.07; p = 0.1). A total of 46 vessels (41.8%) had FFR ≤ 0.80, 50 (45.5%) vessels had cFFR ≤ 0.83, 44 (40.0%) vessels had QFR ≤ 0.80, and 38 (34.5%) vessels had iFR ≤ 0.89. An excellent agreement between cFFR and resting Pd/Pa, FFR, QFR, and iFR was confirmed (intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.83, 0.99, 0.98, and 0.88, respectively). The optimal cutoff value of cFFR was 0.83 for prediction of FFR ≤ 0.80 with sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 96.9%, 97.8%, and 97.3%, respectively. 100% sensitivity was observed for a cutoff value of 0.82 and 100% specificity for a cutoff value of 0.84; AUC = 0.998 (0.995–1.00); p < 0.001.

Conclusions

Contrast medium Pd/Pa ratio seems to be accurate in predicting the functional significance of borderline coronary lesions assessed with FFR, iFR, and QFR.

Coronary angiography-derived contrast fractional flow reserve

BACKGROUND

Based on coronary angiography and mean aortic pressure, a specially designed computational flow dynamics (CFD) method is proposed to determine contrast fractional flow reserve (cFFR) without using invasive pressure wire. This substudy assessed diagnostic performance of coronary angiography-derived cFFR in catheterization laboratory, based on a previous multicenter trial for online assessment of coronary angiography-derived FFR (caFFR).

METHODS

Patients with diagnosis of stable angina pectoris or unstable angina pectoris were enrolled in six centers. Wire-based FFR was measured in coronary arteries with 30-90% diameter stenosis. Offline angiography-derived cFFR was computed in blinded fashion against the wire-based FFR and caFFR at an independent core laboratory.

RESULTS

A total of 330 patients were enrolled to fulfill inclusion/exclusion criteria from June 26 to December 18, 2018. Offline angiography-derived cFFR and wire-based FFR results were compared in 328 interrogated vessels. The statistical analysis showed the highest diagnostic accuracy of 89.0 and 86.6% for angiography-derived cFFR with a cutoff value of 0.94 and 0.93 against the wire-based FFR with a cutoff value of 0.80 and 0.75, respectively. The corresponding sensitivity and specificity were 92.2 and 87.3% for the cutoff value of 0.94 and 80.0 and 88.4% for the cutoff value of 0.93, which are similar to those against the caFFR. The receiver-operating curve has area under the curve of 0.951 and 0.972 for the wire-based FFR with the cutoff value of 0.80 and 0.75, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Coronary angiography-derived cFFR showed higher accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity against wired-based FFR and caFFR. Hence, angiography-derived cFFR could enhance the hemodynamic assessment of coronary lesions.

Contrast FFR plus intracoronary injection of nitro-glycerine accurately predicts FFR for coronary stenosis functional assessment

BACKGROUND

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the "gold standard" for assessing the physiological significance of coronary disease. In the last decade, several alternative adenosine-free indexes have been proposed in order to facilitate the dissemination of the functional evaluation of coronary stenosis. Our aim was to investigate whether radiographic contrast plus intracoronary nitroglycerin (cFFR-NTG) can predict functional assessment of coronary stenosis offering superior diagnostic agreement with FFR compared to non-hyperemic indexes and contrast mediated FFR (cFFR).

METHODS

Three hundred twenty-nine lesions evaluated with pressure wire in 266 patients were prospectively included in this multicenter study.

RESULTS

The ROC curves for cFFR-NTG using an FFR≤0.80 showed a higher accuracy in predicting FFR (AUC=0.97) than resting Pd/Pa (AUC=0.90, P<0.01) and cFFR (AUC=0.93.5, P<0.01). A significant (P<0.01) strong correlation was found between FFR and the four analyzed indexes: Pd/Pa (r=0.78); iFR/RFR (r=0.73); cFFR(r=0.89) and cFFR-NTG (r=0.93). cFFR-NTG showed the closest agreement at Bland-Altman analysis. The cFFR-NTG cut off value >0.84 showed the highest negative predictive value (88%), specificity (91%), sensitivity (94%) and accuracy (92%) of the studied indexes.

CONCLUSIONS

Submaximal hyperemic adenosine-free indexes are an efficient alternative to adenosine for the physiological assessment of epicardial coronary disease. The most accurate index in predicting the functional significance of coronary stenosis using FFR as reference was cFFR-NTG.

Prognostic impact of FFR/contrast FFR discordance

BACKGROUND

Contrast fractional flow reserve (cFFR) is a relatively new tool for the assessment of intermediate coronary artery stenosis and represents a reliable surrogate of FFR with the advantage of potentially simplifying functional evaluation. We aimed to compare the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients undergoing functional evaluation with both FFR and cFFR based on the results of the two indexes.

METHOD AND RESULT

We retrospectively analyzed outcomes in 488 patients who underwent functional evaluation with FFR and cFFR. Patients were divided into four groups using the cutoff values of 0.80 for FFR and 0.85 for cFFR: -/- (n = 298), +/+ (n = 134), -/+(n = 31) and +/- (n = 25). All patients were treated according to FFR value. MACE rate was assessed in each group, including death, myocardial infarction and urgent target vessel revascularization (TVR). Mean follow-up time was 22 ± 15 months. Incidence of MACE at follow-up was 8.3% in FFR-/cFFR-, 14.0% in FFR+/cFFR+, 16.0% in FFR-/cFFR+ and 8.0% in FFR+/cFFR- without a significant difference amongst the 4 groups (p = 0.2). Nevertheless, a significant difference in the rate of TVR comparing FFR-/cFFR- (n = 17) and FFR-/cFFR+ (n = 5) was found at 24 months (5.7% vs 16.0%; p = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

cFFR is accurate in predicting FFR and consequently reliable in guiding coronary revascularization. In the rare case of discordance, while FFR+/cFFR- patients show a prognosis similar to FFR-/cFFR- patients, FFR-/cFFR+ patients show a prognosis similar to FFR+/cFFR+ patients.

Utility of Saline-Induced Resting Full-Cycle Ratio Compared with Resting Full-Cycle Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve

Background

The saline-induced distal coronary pressure/aortic pressure ratio predicted fractional flow reserve (FFR). The resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) represents the maximal relative pressure difference in a cardiac cycle. Therefore, the present study aimed to compare the results of saline-induced RFR (sRFR) with FFR.

Methods

Seventy consecutive lesions with only moderate stenosis were included. The FFR, RFR, and sRFR values were compared. The sRFR was assessed using an intracoronary bolus infusion of saline (2  mL/s) for five heartbeats. The FFR was obtained after an intravenous injection of papaverine.

Results

Overall, the FFR, sRFR, and RFR values were 0.78 ± 0.12, 0.79 ± 0.13, and 0.83 ± 0.14, respectively. With regard to anatomical morphology were 40, 18, and 12 cases of focal, diffuse, and tandem lesion. There was a significant correlation between the sRFR and FFR (R = 0.96, p < 0.01). There were also significant correlations between the sRFR and FFR in the left coronary and right coronary artery (R = 0.95, p < 0.01 and R = 0.98, p < 0.01). Furthermore, significant correlations between sRFR and FFR were observed in not only focal but also in nonfocal lesion including tandem and diffuse lesions (R = 0.93, p < 0.01 and R = 0.97, p < 0.01). A close agreement on FFR and sRFR was shown using the Bland–Altman analysis (95% CI of agreement: −0.08–0.07). In the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the cutoff value of sRFR to predict an FFR of 0.80 was 0.81 (area under curve, 0.97; sensitivity 90.6%; and specificity 98.2%).

Conclusion

The sRFR can accurately and safely predict the FFR and might be effective for diagnosing ischemia.

Novel Indices of Coronary Physiology

Fractional flow reserve is the current invasive gold standard for assessing the ischemic potential of an angiographically intermediate coronary stenosis. Procedural cost and time, the need for coronary vessel instrumentation, and the need to administer adenosine to achieve maximal hyperemia remain integral components of invasive fractional flow reserve. The number of new alternatives to fractional flow reserve has proliferated over the last ten years using techniques ranging from alternative pressure wire metrics to anatomic simulation via angiography or intravascular imaging. This review article provides a critical description of the currently available or under-development alternatives to fractional flow reserve with a special focus on the available evidence, pros, and cons for each with a view towards their clinical application in the near future for the functional assessment of coronary artery disease.

Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-Fractional Flow Reserve versus Quantitative Flow Ratio for Functional Assessment of Coronary Stenoses

Background. Use of the fractional flow reserve (FFR) technique is recommended to evaluate coronary stenosis severity and guide revascularization. However, its high cost, time to administer, and the side effects of adenosine reduce its clinical utility. Two novel adenosine-free indices, contrast-FFR (cFFR) and quantitative flow ratio (QFR), can simplify the functional evaluation of coronary stenosis. This study aimed to analyze the diagnostic performance of cFFR and QFR using FFR as a reference index. Methods. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies in which cFFR or QFR was compared to FFR. A bivariate model was applied to pool diagnostic parameters. Cochran’s Q test and the I2 index were used to assess heterogeneity and identify the potential source of heterogeneity by metaregression and sensitivity analysis. Results. Overall, 2220 and 3000 coronary lesions from 20 studies were evaluated by cFFR and QFR, respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 (95% CI: 0.81, 0.91) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88, 0.94) for cFFR and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82, 0.91) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87, 0.93) for QFR, respectively. No statistical significance of sensitivity and specificity for cFFR and QFR were observed in the bivariate analysis (P=0.8406 and 0.4397, resp.). The area under summary receiver-operating curve of cFFR and QFR was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93, 0.97) for cFFR and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93, 0.97). Conclusion. Both cFFR and QFR have good diagnostic performance in detecting functional severity of coronary arteries and showed similar diagnostic parameters.

Intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine to assess fractional flow reserve: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Intravenous infusion of adenosine is the reference method to measure fractional flow reserve (FFR). Intracoronary boluses are often used because of time and convenience, but their effectiveness has yet to be assessed.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies directly comparing intravenous and intracoronary adenosine administration for FFR measurement. FFR values and prevalence of functionally critical lesions obtained with the different methods of adenosine administration were compared.

RESULTS

Twelve studies evaluating 781 lesions from 731 patients were included (63.7 years, 25.5% women, median FFR 0.82). FFR values were significantly lower with intravenous adenosine than with intracoronary adenosine [mean difference 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00-0.02, P = 0.005], even if no significant differences were observed when only high doses of intracoronary adenosine (≥150 μg) were considered. The prevalence of functionally critical lesions did not significantly differ between intracoronary and intravenous adenosine. Concerning the use of different doses of intracoronary adenosine, low doses (≤60 μg) were associated with higher FFR values (mean difference 0.02, 95% CI 0.01-0.03, P < 0.001) and fewer functionally critical lesions (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40-0.81, P = 0.002) compared with high doses. Meta-regression analysis did not show any significant interaction between the way of adenosine administration and main clinical features. Intracoronary adenosine was associated with a higher incidence of atrioventricular blocks, whereas angina and/or systemic symptoms were more frequent with intravenous adenosine.

CONCLUSION

Intracoronary adenosine might be as effective as intravenous adenosine to measure FFR, provided that adequate doses are used. Intracoronary adenosine represents a valuable alternative to intravenous adenosine whenever appropriately administered.

Saline-induced Pd/Pa ratio predicts functional significance of coronary stenosis assessed using fractional flow reserve

AIMS

Fractional flow reserve (FFR), assessed using distal coronary pressure/aortic pressure (Pd)/(Pa) ratio, functionally evaluates coronary stenosis. An assessment method without vasodilators would be helpful. A single intracoronary bolus of saline decreases Pd because of the speculated low-viscosity effect. We hypothesised that saline-induced Pd/Pa ratio (SPR) could functionally evaluate coronary stenosis. This study aimed to test the accuracy and utility of SPR for predicting FFR ≤0.80.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In 137 coronary lesions with over 50% angiographic diameter stenosis, SPR was assessed using an intracoronary bolus of saline (2 mL/s) for five heartbeats (SPR-5) and three heartbeats (SPR-3). FFR was obtained after intravenous adenosine infusion (140 µg/kg/min). There was a strong correlation between FFR and SPR-5 or SPR-3 (R=0.941 and R=0.933, respectively). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis demonstrated good accuracy (86.3%) for SPR-5, with a cut-off of ≤0.84 for predicting FFR ≤0.80 (area under ROC curve 0.96, specificity 94.3, sensitivity 79.9). Thirty-three lesions (24%) were located in the "grey zone" (SPR 0.83-0.88). No complications were observed in 673 SPR measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

SPR may accurately predict FFR and can limit adenosine use to one in four lesions. Further studies are needed to confirm the validity of SPR.

Influence of Contrast Media Dose and Osmolality on the Diagnostic Performance of Contrast Fractional Flow Reserve

BACKGROUND

Contrast fractional flow reserve (cFFR) is a method for assessing functional significance of coronary stenoses, which is more accurate than resting indices and does not require adenosine. However, contrast media volume and osmolality may affect the degree of hyperemia and therefore diagnostic performance.

METHODS AND RESULTS

cFFR, instantaneous wave-free ratio, distal pressure/aortic pressure at rest, and FFR were measured in 763 patients from 12 centers. We compared the diagnostic performance of cFFR between patients receiving low or iso-osmolality contrast (n=574 versus 189) and low or high contrast volume (n=341 versus 422) using FFR≤0.80 as a reference standard. The sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy of cFFR for the low versus iso-osmolality groups were 73%, 93%, and 85% versus 87%, 90%, and 89%, and for the low versus high contrast volume groups were 69%, 99%, and 83% versus 82%, 93%, and 88%. By receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis, cFFR provided better diagnostic performance than resting indices regardless of contrast osmolality and volume (P<0.001 for all groups). There was no significant difference between the area under the curve of cFFR in the low- and iso-osmolality groups (0.938 versus 0.957; P=0.40) and in the low- and high-volume groups (0.939 versus 0.949; P=0.61). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that neither contrast osmolality nor volume affected the overall accuracy of cFFR; however, both affected the sensitivity and specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall accuracy of cFFR is greater than instantaneous wave-free ratio and distal pressure/aortic pressure and not significantly affected by contrast volume and osmolality. However, contrast volume and osmolality do affect the sensitivity and specificity of cFFR.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02184117.

Pooled diagnostic accuracy of resting distal to aortic coronary pressure referenced to fractional flow reserve: The importance of resting coronary physiology

INTRODUCTION

Both resting and hyperemic physiologic methods to guide coronary revascularization improve cardiovascular outcomes compared with angiographic guidance alone. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) remains underutilized due to concerns regarding hyperemia, prompting study of resting distal to aortic coronary pressure (Pd/Pa). Pd/Pa is a vasodilator-free resting index unlike FFR. While Pd/Pa is similar to another resting index, instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), it is a whole-cycle measurement not limited to the wave-free diastolic period. Pd/Pa is not validated clinically although multiple accuracy studies have been performed. Our meta-analysis examines the overall diagnostic accuracy of Pd/Pa referenced to FFR, the accepted invasive standard of ischemia.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Central, ProQuest, and Web of Science databases for full text articles published through August 9, 2017 addressing the diagnostic accuracy of Pd/Pa referenced to FFR < 0.80. The following keywords were used: "distal coronary artery pressure" OR "Pd/Pa" AND "fractional flow reserve" OR "FFR."

RESULTS

In total, 14 studies comprising 7004 lesions were identified. Pooled diagnostic accuracy estimates of Pd/Pa versus FFR < 0.80 were: sensitivity, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.75-0.78); specificity, 0.82 (0.81-0.83); positive likelihood ratio, 4.7 (3.3-6.6); negative likelihood ratio, 0.29 (0.24-0.34); diagnostic odds ratio, 18.1 (14.4-22.6); area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.88; and diagnostic accuracy of 0.80 (0.76-0.83).

CONCLUSIONS

Pd/Pa shows adequate agreement with FFR as a resting index of coronary stenosis severity without the undesired effects and cost of hyperemic agents. Pd/Pa has the potential to guide coronary revascularization with easier application and availability compared with iFR and FFR.

Simplifying the assessment of coronary artery stenosis by enhancing instantaneous wave free ratio

Background

Instantaneous wave free ratio (iFR) does not require adenosine, but has a relatively wide intermediate range where functional assessment remains inconclusive. In this pilot study, we sought to enhance iFR through with the use of intracoronary (IC) saline (iFRs) and contrast media (iFRc) and determine whether these techniques correlated well with fractional flow reserve (FFR).

Methods

Patients with coronary artery stenosis (CAS) associated with an iFR in the intermediate zone (≥0.86 and ≤0.93) were prospectively assessed with resting distal coronary pressure/aorta pressure (Pd/Pa), iFR, iFRs, iFRc and FFR.

Results

A total of 40 coronary lesions were studied (40 patients). Pearson correlation coefficients for FFR and iFR, FFR and iFRs, FFR and iFRc were respectively: 0.57 (P=0.0002), 0.80 (P<0.0001) and 0.77 (P<0.0001). Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed similar area under the curve (AUC) of iFRs and iFR [0.90 (95% CI: 0.76-1) vs. 0.89 (95% CI: 0.79-0.99), P=0.89]. Youden's index established cut-off values of ≤0.90 for iFR (sensitivity =91%, specificity =74%) and ≤0.78 for iFRs (sensitivity =73%, specificity =100%). In contrast, the AUC of iFRc was superior to the AUC of iFR [0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1), P=0.049]. iFRc showed excellent accuracy and established cut-off values of ≤0.81 in predicting an FFR value of ≤0.80 (sensitivity =100%, specificity =93%).

Conclusions

When iFR is in the intermediate zone, functional assessment of CAS by iFR is enhanced with the use of contrast media but not saline. This pilot study could be hypothesis generating for further study to enhance iFR specificity and sensibility.

Evaluation of Coronary Artery Stenosis by Quantitative Flow Ratio During Invasive Coronary Angiography: The WIFI II Study (Wire-Free Functional Imaging II)

BACKGROUND

Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel diagnostic modality for functional testing of coronary artery stenosis without the use of pressure wires and induction of hyperemia. QFR is based on computation of standard invasive coronary angiographic imaging. The purpose of WIFI II (Wire-Free Functional Imaging II) was to evaluate the feasibility and diagnostic performance of QFR in unselected consecutive patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

WIFI II was a predefined substudy to the Dan-NICAD study (Danish Study of Non-Invasive Diagnostic Testing in Coronary Artery Disease), referring 362 consecutive patients with suspected coronary artery disease on coronary computed tomographic angiography for diagnostic invasive coronary angiography. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) was measured in all segments with 30% to 90% diameter stenosis. Blinded observers calculated QFR (Medis Medical Imaging bv, The Netherlands) for comparison with FFR. FFR was measured in 292 lesions from 191 patients. Ten (5%) and 9 patients (5%) were excluded because of FFR and angiographic core laboratory criteria, respectively. QFR was successfully computed in 240 out of 255 lesions (94%) with a mean diameter stenosis of 50±12%. Mean difference between FFR and QFR was 0.01±0.08. QFR correctly classified 83% of the lesions using FFR with cutoff at 0.80 as reference standard. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.91) with a sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value of 77%, 86%, 75%, and 87%, respectively. A QFR-FFR hybrid approach based on the present results enables wire-free and adenosine-free procedures in 68% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Functional lesion evaluation by QFR assessment showed good agreement and diagnostic accuracy compared with FFR. Studies comparing clinical outcome after QFR- and FFR-based diagnostic strategies are required.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02264717.

Invasive physiological indices to determine the functional significance of coronary stenosis

Physiological measurements are now commonly used to assess coronary lesions in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory, and this practice is evidence-based and supported by clinical guidelines. Fractional flow reserve is currently the gold standard method to determine whether coronary lesions are functionally significant, and is used to guide revascularization. There are however several other physiological measurements that have been proposed as alternatives to the fractional flow reserve. This review aims to comprehensively discuss physiological indices that can be used in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory to determine the functional significance of coronary lesions. We will focus on their advantages and disadvantages, and the current evidence supporting their use.

A Practical Guide for Fractional Flow Reserve Guided Revascularisation

The presence and extent of myocardial ischaemia is a major determinant of prognosis and benefit from revascularisation in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) is accepted as the reference standard for invasive assessment of ischaemia. Its ability to detect lesion specific ischaemia makes it a useful test in a wide range of patient and lesion subsets, with FFR guided intervention improving clinical outcomes and reducing health care costs compared to assessment with coronary angiography alone. This article will review the basic principles in FFR, practical tips in FFR guided revascularisation and the role of emerging non-hyperaemic indices of ischaemia.

Fractional flow reserve and resting indices for coronary physiologic assessment: Practical guide, tips, and tricks

Physiologic assessment using fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) has been demonstrated to improve clinical outcomes, compared to angiography-guided PCI. Recently, resting indices such as resting Pd/Pa, "instantaneous wave-free ratio", and contrast medium induced FFR have been evaluated for the assessment of the functional consequences of coronary lesions. Herein, we review and discuss the use of FFR and other indices for the functional assessment of coronary lesions. This review will cover theoretical aspects, as well as practical points and common pitfalls related to coronary physiological assessment. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.