Assessing coronary disease in patients with severe aortic stenosis: the need for a 'valid' gold standard for validation studies?

Long-Term Effects of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation on Coronary Hemodynamics in Patients With Concomitant Coronary Artery Disease and Severe Aortic Stenosis

Background As younger patients are being considered for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), the assessment and treatment of concomitant coronary artery disease is taking on increased importance. Methods and Results Thirteen contemporary lower-risk patients with TAVI with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and moderate-severe coronary lesions were included. Patients underwent assessment of coronary hemodynamics in the presence of severe AS (pre-TAVI), in the absence of severe AS (immediately post-TAVI), and at longer-term follow-up (6 months post-TAVI). Fractional flow reserve decreased from 0.85 (0.76-0.88) pre-TAVI to 0.79 (0.74-0.83) post-TAVI, and then to 0.71 (0.65-0.77) at 6-month follow-up (P<0.001 for all comparisons). Conversely, instantaneous wave-free ratio was not significantly different: 0.82 (0.80-0.90) pre-TAVI, 0.83 (0.77-0.88) post-TAVI, and 0.83 (0.73-0.89) at 6 months (P=0.735). These changes are explained by the underlying coronary flow. Hyperemic whole-cycle coronary flow (fractional flow reserve flow) increased from 26.36 cm/s (23.82-31.82 cm/s) pre-TAVI to 30.78 cm/s (29.70-34.68 cm/s) post-TAVI (P=0.012), to 40.20 cm/s (32.14-50.00 cm/s) at 6-month follow-up (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Resting flow during the wave-free period of diastole was not significantly different: 25.48 cm/s (21.12-33.65 cm/s) pre-TAVI, 24.54 cm/s (20.74-27.88 cm/s) post-TAVI, and 25.89 cm/s (22.57-28.96 cm/s) at 6 months (P=0.500). Conclusions TAVI acutely improves whole-cycle hyperemic coronary flow, with ongoing sustained improvements at longer-term follow-up. This enhanced response to hyperemic stimuli appears to make fractional flow reserve assessment less suitable for patients with severe AS. Conversely, resting diastolic flow is not significantly influenced by the presence of severe AS. Resting indices of coronary stenosis severity, therefore, appear to be more appropriate for this patient population, although large-scale prospective randomized trials will be required to determine the role of coronary physiology in patients with severe AS.

Determining the Predominant Lesion in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and Coronary Stenoses: A Multicenter Study Using Intracoronary Pressure and Flow

Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) often have coronary artery disease. Both the aortic valve and the coronary disease influence the blood flow to the myocardium and its ability to respond to stress; leading to exertional symptoms. In this study, we aim to quantify the effect of severe AS on the coronary microcirculation and determine if this is influenced by any concomitant coronary disease. We then compare this to the effect of coronary stenoses on the coronary microcirculation.

Coronary Hemodynamics in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Implications for Clinical Indices of Coronary Stenosis Severity

OBJECTIVES

In this study, a systematic analysis was conducted of phasic intracoronary pressure and flow velocity in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease, undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), to determine how AS affects: 1) phasic coronary flow; 2) hyperemic coronary flow; and 3) the most common clinically used indices of coronary stenosis severity, instantaneous wave-free ratio and fractional flow reserve.

BACKGROUND

A significant proportion of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) have concomitant coronary artery disease. The effect of the valve on coronary pressure, flow, and the established invasive clinical indices of stenosis severity have not been studied.

METHODS

Twenty-eight patients (30 lesions, 50.0% men, mean age 82.1 ± 6.5 years) with severe AS and coronary artery disease were included. Intracoronary pressure and flow assessments were performed at rest and during hyperemia immediately before and after TAVR.

RESULTS

Flow during the wave-free period of diastole did not change post-TAVR (29.78 ± 14.9 cm/s vs. 30.81 ± 19.6 cm/s; p = 0.64). Whole-cycle hyperemic flow increased significantly post-TAVR (33.44 ± 13.4 cm/s pre-TAVR vs. 40.33 ± 17.4 cm/s post-TAVR; p = 0.006); this was secondary to significant increases in systolic hyperemic flow post-TAVR (27.67 ± 12.1 cm/s pre-TAVR vs. 34.15 ± 17.5 cm/s post-TAVR; p = 0.02). Instantaneous wave-free ratio values did not change post-TAVR (0.88 ± 0.09 pre-TAVR vs. 0.88 ± 0.09 post-TAVR; p = 0.73), whereas fractional flow reserve decreased significantly post-TAVR (0.87 ± 0.08 pre-TAVR vs. 0.85 ± 0.09 post-TAVR; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Systolic and hyperemic coronary flow increased significantly post-TAVR; consequently, hyperemic indices that include systole underestimated coronary stenosis severity in patients with severe AS. Flow during the wave-free period of diastole did not change post-TAVR, suggesting that indices calculated during this period are not vulnerable to the confounding effect of the stenotic aortic valve.