Operator decision-making in angiography-only guided revascularization for lesions not indicated for FFR: a QFR-based functional assessment in chronic coronary syndrome

Background

Discordance between coronary angiographic findings and invasive functional significance is well-established. Yet, the prevalence of this mismatch in an era increasingly utilizing invasive functional assessments, such as fractional flow reserve (FFR), remains unclear. This study examines the extent of such discrepancies in current clinical practice.

Methods

This single-center prospective registry included consecutive patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) who underwent elective coronary angiography, with or without revascularization. Coronary angiograms deemed not requiring FFR due to clear anatomical distinctions, either anatomically severe indicating a need for revascularization or mild suggesting no need for intervention, were selected for evaluation. These were then subjected to post-hoc analysis by three independent operators who were blinded to the definitive treatment strategies. Importantly, the post-hoc analysis was conducted in two distinct phases: firstly, a re-evaluation of coronary stenosis, and secondly, a separate functional assessment, each carried out independently. Coronary stenosis severity was assessed visually, while functional relevance was determined by quantitative flow ratio (QFR), calculated using a computational fluid dynamics algorithm applied to angiographic images. Analysis focused on discrepancies between QFR-based functional indications and revascularization strategies actually performed.

Results

In 191 patients, 488 vessels were analyzed. Average diameter stenosis (DS) was 37 ± 34%, and QFR was 0.87 ± 0.15, demonstrating a moderate correlation (r = -0.84; 95% CI: -0.86 to -0.81, p < 0.01). Agreement with QFR at conventional anatomical cutoffs was 88% for 50% DS and 91% for 70% DS. Mismatches between revascularization decisions and QFR indications occurred in 10% of cases. Discrepancies were more frequent in the left anterior descending artery (14%) compared to the left circumflex (6%) and the right coronary artery (9%; p = 0.07).

Conclusion

In a cardiac-center where FFR utilization is high, discordance between coronary angiography and functional significance persists, even when operators are confident in their decisions not to use functional interrogation. This gap, most evident in the left anterior descending artery, highlights the potential need for integrated angiography-based functional assessments to refine revascularization decisions in CCS.

Transesophageal echocardiography-guided versus fluoroscopy-guided patent foramen ovale closure: A single center registry

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) is conventionally performed under continuous transesophageal echocardiographic (TEE) guidance. We aimed to evaluate whether a simplified procedural approach, including pure fluoroscopy-guidance and final TEE control, as well as an aimed 'next-day-discharge' is comparable with the conventional TEE-guided procedure in terms of periprocedural and intermediate-term outcomes.

METHODS

All patients who underwent a PFO closure at our center between 2010 and 2022 were retrospectively included. Prior to June 2019 cases were performed with continuous TEE guidance (TEE-guided group). Since June 2019, only pure fluoroscopy-guided PFO closures have been performed with TEE insertion and control just prior to device release (fluoroscopy-guided group). We analyzed procedural aspects, as well as long term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes.

RESULTS

In total 291 patients were included in the analysis: 197 in the TEE-guided group and 94 in the fluoroscopy-guided group. Fluoroscopy-guided procedures were markedly shorter (48 ± 20 min vs. 25 ± 9 min; p < .01). There was no difference in procedural complications, including death, major bleeding, device dislodgement, stroke or clinically relevant peripheral embolization between the two groups (.5% vs. 0%; p = .99). Hospital stay was also shorter with the simplified approach (2.5 ± 1.6 vs. 3.5 ± 1.2 days; p < .01), allowing 85% same-day discharges during the last 12 months of observation period. At 6 ± 3 months echocardiographic follow-up a residual leakage was described in 8% of the TEE-guided cases and 2% of the fluoroscopy-guided cases (p = .08).

CONCLUSION

While a complete TEE-free PFO closure might have potential procedural risks, our approach of pure fluoroscopy-guided with a brisk final TEE check seems to be advantageous in terms of procedural aspects with no sign of any acute or intermediate-term hazard and it could offer an equitable compromise between the two worlds: a complete TEE procedure and a procedure without any TEE.