Using Physiology Pullback for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Guidance: Is this the Future?

Modern coronary intervention requires integration of angiographic, physiologic, and intravascular imaging. This article describes the use and techniques needed to understand coronary physiology pullback data and how use it to make revascularization decisions. The article describes instantaneous wave-free ratio, fractional flow reserve, and the data that support their use and how they differ when used in tandem disease. Common practical mistakes and errors are discussed together with a brief review of the limited published research data.

Understanding the Basis for Hyperemic and Nonhyperemic Coronary Pressure Assessment

Despite the now routine integration of invasive physiologic systems into coronary catheter laboratories worldwide, it remains critical that all operators maintain a sound understanding of the fundamental physiologic basis for coronary pressure assessment. More specifically, performing operators should be well informed regarding the basis for hyperemic (ie, fractional flow reserve) and nonhyperemic (ie, instantaneous wave-free ratio and other nonhyperemic pressure ratio) coronary pressure assessment. In this article, we provide readers a comprehensive history charting the inception, development, and validation of hyperemic and nonhyperemic coronary pressure assessment.

Physiology and Intravascular Imaging Coregistration-Best of all Worlds?

Percutaneous coronary intervention is increasingly guided by coronary physiology and optimized using intravascular imaging. Pressure-based measurements determine the significance of a stenosis using hyperemic or nonhyperemic pressure ratios (eg, the instantaneous wave-free ratio). Intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography provide cross-sectional and longitudinal detail regarding plaque composition and vessel characteristics. These facilitate lesion preparation and optimization of stent sizing and positioning. This review explores the evidence-base and practical aspects of coregistering pressure gradient assessment and intravascular imaging with angiography. We then discuss gaps in the evidence and what is needed to help integrate these techniques into clinical practice.

Contemporary Use of Coronary Physiology in Cardiology

Coronary angiography has a limited ability to predict the functional significance of intermediate coronary lesions. Hence, physiological assessment of coronary lesions, via fractional flow reserve (FFR) or instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), has been introduced to determine their functional significance. An accumulating body of evidence has consolidated the role of physiology-guided revascularization, particularly among patients with stable ischemic heart disease. The use of FFR or iFR to guide decision-making in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and intermediate coronary lesions received a class I recommendation from major societal guidelines. Nevertheless, the role of coronary physiology testing is less clear among certain patients' groups, including patients with serial coronary lesions, acute coronary syndromes, aortic stenosis, heart failure, as well as post-percutaneous coronary interventions. In this review, we aimed to discuss the utility and clinical evidence of coronary physiology (mainly FFR and iFR), with emphasis on those specific patient groups.

Culprit versus Complete Revascularization during the Initial Intervention in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Using a Virtual Treatment Planning Tool: Results of a Single-Center Pilot Study

Background and Objectives: The revascularization strategy for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with multivessel (MV) acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains controversial. Certain gaps in the evidence are related to the optimal timing of non-culprit lesion revascularization and the utility of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) in the management of MV ACS intervention. The major benefits of iFR utilization in MV ACS patients in one-stage complete revascularization are: (1) the possibility to virtually plan the PCI, both the location and the extension of the necessary stenting to achieve the prespecified final hemodynamic result; (2) the opportunity to validate the final hemodynamic result of the PCI, both in culprit artery and all non-culprit arteries and (3) the value of obliviating the uncomfortable, costly, time consuming and sometimes deleterious effects from Adenosine, as there is no requirement for administration. Thus, iFR use fosters the achievement of physiologically appropriate complete revascularization in MV ACS patients during acute hospitalization. Materials and Methods: This pilot study was aimed to test the feasibility of a randomized trial research protocol as well as to assess patient safety signals of co-registration iFR-guided one-stage complete revascularization compared with that of standard staged angiography-guided PCI in de novo patients with MV ACS. This was a single-center, prospective, randomized, open-label clinical trial consecutively screening patients with ACS for MV disease. The intervention strategy of interest was iFR-guided physiologically complete one-stage revascularization, in which the virtual PCI planning of non-culprit lesions and the intervention itself were performed in one stage directly following treatment of the culprit lesion and other critical stenosis of more than ninety percent. Seventeen patients were recruited and completed the 3-month follow-up. Results: Index PCI duration was significantly longer while the volume of contrast media delivered in index PCI was significantly greater in the iFR-guided group than in the angiography-guided group (119.4 ± 40.7 vs. 47 ± 15.5 min, p = 0.004; and 360 ± 97.9 vs. 192.5 ± 52.8 mL, p = 0.003). There were no significant differences in PCI-related major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) between the groups during acute hospitalization and at 3-months follow-up. One-stage iFR-guided PCI requires fewer PCI attempts until complete revascularization than does angiography-guided staged PCI. Conclusions: Complete revascularization with the routine use of the virtual planning tool in one-stage iFR-guided PCI is a feasible practical strategy in an everyday Cath lab environment following the protocol designed for the study. No statistically significant safety signals were documented in the number of PCI related MACE during the 3-month follow-up.

Physiology and Intravascular Imaging Coregistration-Best of all Worlds?

Percutaneous coronary intervention is increasingly guided by coronary physiology and optimized using intravascular imaging. Pressure-based measurements determine the significance of a stenosis using hyperemic or nonhyperemic pressure ratios (eg, the instantaneous wave-free ratio). Intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography provide cross-sectional and longitudinal detail regarding plaque composition and vessel characteristics. These facilitate lesion preparation and optimization of stent sizing and positioning. This review explores the evidence-base and practical aspects of coregistering pressure gradient assessment and intravascular imaging with angiography. We then discuss gaps in the evidence and what is needed to help integrate these techniques into clinical practice.

Using Physiology Pullback for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Guidance: Is this the Future?

Modern coronary intervention requires integration of angiographic, physiologic, and intravascular imaging. This article describes the use and techniques needed to understand coronary physiology pullback data and how use it to make revascularization decisions. The article describes instantaneous wave-free ratio, fractional flow reserve, and the data that support their use and how they differ when used in tandem disease. Common practical mistakes and errors are discussed together with a brief review of the limited published research data.

Understanding the Basis for Hyperemic and Nonhyperemic Coronary Pressure Assessment

Despite the now routine integration of invasive physiologic systems into coronary catheter laboratories worldwide, it remains critical that all operators maintain a sound understanding of the fundamental physiologic basis for coronary pressure assessment. More specifically, performing operators should be well informed regarding the basis for hyperemic (ie, fractional flow reserve) and nonhyperemic (ie, instantaneous wave-free ratio and other nonhyperemic pressure ratio) coronary pressure assessment. In this article, we provide readers a comprehensive history charting the inception, development, and validation of hyperemic and nonhyperemic coronary pressure assessment.

Myocardial mass affects diagnostic performance of non-hyperemic pressure-derived indexes in the assessment of coronary stenosis

Background Several non-hyperemic pressure-derived Indexes (NHPI) have been introduced for the assessment of coronary stenosis, showing a good correlation with fractional flow reserve (FFR). Notably, either the assessment of NHPI during adenosine administration (NHPI_ADO) or the Hybrid Approach (NHPI_HA), combining NHPI with FFR, have been showed to increase the accuracy of such indexes. It remains unclear whether diagnostic performance might be affected by the extent of the subtended myocardial mass.

METHODS

We enrolled consecutive patients with an intermediate coronary stenosis assessed with NHPI and FFR. NHPI were also measured during adenosine (ADO) administration (NHPI_ADO). The amount of jeopardized myocardium was assessed using the Duke Jeopardy Score (DJS). With FFR as reference, we assessed the accuracy of NHPI, NHPI_ADO and NHPI_HA according to the extent of the subtended myocardium.

RESULTS

One-hundred-seventy stenoses from 151 patients were grouped according to the DJS as follows: A) Small Extent (SE, n = 82); B) Moderate Extent (ME, n = 53); C) Large Extent (LE, n = 35). As compared with FFR, NHPI showed a significantly different accuracy, as assessed by the Youden's index, according to the extent of the jeopardized myocardium (SE: 0.39 ± 0.05, ME: 0.68 ± 0.06, LE: 0.28 ± 0.06, p < 0.001). Conversely, both the NHPI_ADO (SE: 0.76 ± 0.02, ME: 0.88 ± 0.02, LE: 0.82 ± 0.02, p = 0.72) and NHPI_HA (SE: 0.82 ± 0.07, ME: 0.84 ± 0.02, LE: 0.88 ± 0.02, p = 0.70) allowed for a better diagnostic accuracy regardless of the amount of myocardium subtended.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic performance of NHPI might be affected by the extent of myocardial territory subtended by the coronary stenosis. A hybrid approach might be useful to overcome this limitation.

Angiographic predictors of coronary hemodynamics

Aims: Assess the correlation between diameter stenosis, lesion length, location, diffuse coronary disease and with fractional flow reserve (FFR). Methods/Results: We performed quantitative coronary analysis analysis on 384 lesions with stable coronary artery disease undergoing FFR assessment. Vessels were 59.1% left anterior descending artery (LAD), 16.1% left circumflex artery and 14.8% right coronary artery. Median diameter stenosis was 58% ± 2.5 and median lesion length was 10 mm ± 7.36. 21% of vessels were diffusely diseased. Lesions were 33.6% proximal, 44% mid-vessel and 12% distal. Median FFR was 0.85. Diameter stenosis correlated with lower FFR (p < 0.005, odds ratio [OR]: 2.4 [95% CI: 0.99-5.63]). There was no association between lesion length, location, number of proximal side branches and FFR. Vessels with diffuse disease had a nonsignificant trend for lower FFR (0.84 vs 0.85, p = 0.375, OR: 1.26 [95% CI: 0.76-2.09]). LAD lesions had significantly lower FFR compared with non-LAD (p < 0.001, OR: 2.55 [95% CI: 1.61-4.04]); including left circumflex artery and right coronary artery lesions (p = 0.001, OR: 3.4 [95% CI: 1.7-6.9]) and p = 0.02, OR: 2.55 [95% CI: 1.17-4.34]). Conclusion: FFR is not related to lesion length, location or number of proximal branches.

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.

Improving PCI Outcomes Using Postprocedural Physiology and Intravascular Imaging

Although clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are improving, the long-term risk for target vessel failure remains concerning. Although the application of intravascular imaging and physiological indexes significantly improves outcomes, their routine use in practice remains limited. Nevertheless, merely using these modalities is not enough, and to truly improve patient outcomes, optimal intravascular dimensions with minimal vascular injury should be targeted. When assessing post-PCI results using either type of physiological or imaging technology, a broad spectrum of stent- and vessel-related anomalies can be expected. As not all of these issues warrant treatment, a profound knowledge of what to expect and how to recognize and when to treat these intraluminal problems is needed. Additionally, promising new modalities such as angiography-derived coronary physiology and hybrid imaging catheters are becoming available. The authors provide an overview of the currently available tools and techniques to define suboptimal PCI and when to apply these technologies to improve outcomes.

A prospective multicenter validation study for a novel angiography-derived physiological assessment software: Rationale and design of the radiographic imaging validation and evaluation for Angio-iFR (ReVEAL iFR) study

Angiography-derived physiological assessment of coronary lesions has emerged as an alternative to wire-based assessment aiming at less-invasiveness and shorter procedural time as well as cost effectiveness in physiology-guided decision making. However, current available image-derived physiology software have limitations including the requirement of multiple projections and are time consuming. METHODS/DESIGN: The ReVEAL iFR (Radiographic imaging Validation and EvALuation for Angio-iFR) trial is a multicenter, multicontinental, validation study which aims to validate the diagnostic accuracy of the Angio-iFR medical software device (Philips, San Diego, US) in patients undergoing angiography for Chronic Coronary Syndrome (CCS). The Angio-iFR will enable operators to predict both the iFR and FFR value within a few seconds from a single projection of cine angiography by using a lumped parameter fluid dynamics model. Approximately 440 patients with at least one de-novo 40% to 90% stenosis by visual angiographic assessment will be enrolled in the study. The primary endpoint is the sensitivity and specificity of the iFR and FFR for a given lesion compared to the corresponding invasive measures. The enrollment started in August 2019, and was completed in March 2021. SUMMARY: The Angio-iFR system has the potential of simplifying physiological evaluation of coronary stenosis compared with available systems, providing estimates of both FFR and iFR. The ReVEAL iFR study will investigate the predictive performance of the novel Angio-iFR software in CCS patients. Ultimately, based on its unique characteristics, the Angio-iFR system may contribute to improve adoption of functional coronary assessment and the workflow in the catheter laboratory.

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.

Association of Echocardiographic Diastolic Dysfunction with Discordance of Invasive Intracoronary Pressure Indices

Instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR)-guided coronary revascularization has similar clinical outcomes compared to fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided revascularization strategy. However, some studies have shown a discordance of around 20% between iFR and FFR. Although various factors have been reported in the literature to affect pressure indices and lead to such discordance, there is a paucity of data regarding the effect of diastolic dysfunction on functional assessment of coronary arteries. Our study aimed to investigate whether there was an association between echocardiographic left ventricular diastolic dysfunction and iFR/FFR discordance. This retrospective observational study evaluated 100 patients with angiographically intermediate coronary stenosis (50-70%) who underwent physiological testing with iFR and FFR. Transthoracic echocardiograms were reviewed to assess echocardiographic indices of diastolic function. The study population was divided into two groups based on diastolic function. iFR and FFR discordance was measured in each group and compared to evaluate the statistical difference. The mean age of the study population was 66.22 ± 10.02 years. Discordance between iFR and FFR was seen in 45.16% of patients with diastolic dysfunction compared to 24.64% of patients with normal diastolic function (p = 0.04). Multivariable logistic regression analysis indicated that echocardiographic E/e' was independently associated with iFR/FFR discordance (p = 0.02). Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction is a significant factor that can lead to discordance between iFR and FFR and should be taken into account during coronary physiological testing.

Effect of Elevated Left Ventricular End Diastolic Pressure on Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve Discordance

Background

Instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR)-guided physiological assessment has been shown to be non-inferior to fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided assessment for deciding best treatment strategy for angiographically intermediate stenosis. The diagnostic accuracy of iFR compared to FFR reported in various studies is around 80%. Many factors can lead to iFR/FFR discordance, though underlying physiological mechanism of discordance and its associated factors have not been fully evaluated. The effect of left ventricle end diastolic pressure (LVEDP) on iFR/FFR discordance is unknown and needs further evaluation.

Methods

We performed a single center, non-randomized, both retrospective and prospective study. A total of 65 patients with intermediate coronary stenosis undergoing physiological assessment were included in the study. Patients were assigned to two groups (normal LVEDP and high LVEDP group) based on LVEDP cutoff of 15 mm Hg. iFR and FFR were measured for each patient and iFR/FFR results were compared between the two groups.

Results

A significantly large number of patients in elevated LVEDP group had iFR/FFR discordance compared to normal LVEDP group (42.8% vs. 6.7%, P = 0.001). More patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) had discordance compared to stale coronary artery disease (CAD) patients (53% vs. 15%, P = 0.003).

Conclusions

Elevated LVEDP can affect iFR and FFR measurements and can lead to discordance. Further studies are required to determine effect of elevated LVEDP on iFR/FFR discordance and whether such discordance is clinically relevant. “Normal range” iFR results should be cautiously interpreted in patients with elevated LVEDP, especially those with ACS.

Behavioural determinants impacting the adoption rate of coronary physiology

BACKGROUND

Despite international revascularisation guidelines strongly recommending functional assessment of coronary artery stenosis using pressure-wire derived indices, the adoption rate of coronary physiology remains low.

METHODS

An online questionnaire was designed to evaluate behavioural determinants impacting the adoption rate of coronary physiology. Factor analysis was performed to combine multiple items of a common behavioural domain into one explanatory factor. Regression analysis was performed to evaluate the influence of resulting factors on the variance of the coronary physiology adoption rate. Additionally, the influence of experience, demographics and provider structures was assessed.

RESULTS

104 interventional cardiologists, from 21 countries, completed the questionnaire. Mean adoption rate of coronary physiology was 26.9%. Regression analysis revealed that factors ease-of-use (Coefficient = 0.58, p = 0.01), financial and/or time constraints (Coefficient = -0.22, p = 0.01) and knowledge about guideline recommendations (Coefficient = 0.21, p = 0.06) had the greatest influence on coronary physiology adoption rate variance (R² = 0.3, p < 0.001), with ease-of-use and guideline recommendations positively influencing greater uptake and constraints influencing lesser uptake of adoption of coronary physiology.

CONCLUSION

Ease-of-use, financial and/or time constraints, and knowledge about guideline recommendations were the most relevant behavioural factors impacting the adoption rate of coronary physiology. Ease-of-use was identified as the most influential factor, highlighting the importance of cardiac catheterisation laboratory teams being adequately trained to perform coronary physiology assessment seamlessly.

Evaluation and Management of Nonculprit Lesions in STEMI

Nonculprit lesions are frequently observed in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Results from recent randomized clinical trials suggest that complete revascularization after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction improves outcomes. In this state-of-the-art paper, the authors review these trials and consider how best to determine which nonculprit lesions require revascularization and when this should be performed.

High precision invasive FFR, low-cost invasive iFR, or non-invasive CFR?: optimum assessment of coronary artery stenosis based on the patient-specific computational models

The objective of this paper is to apply computational fluid dynamic (CFD) as a complementary tool for clinical tests to not only predict the present and future status of left coronary artery stenosis but also to evaluate some clinical hypotheses. In order to assess the present status of the coronary artery stenosis severity, and thereby selecting the most appropriate type of treatment for each patient, fractional flow reserve (FFR), instantaneous wave free-ratio (iFR), and coronary flow reserve (CFR) are calculated. To examine FFR, iFR, and CFR results, the effect of geometric features of stenoses, including diameter reduction (%), lesion length (LL), and minimum lumen diameter (MLD), is studied on them. It is observed that FFR is a more conservative index than iFR and CFR to assess the severity of coronary stenosis. In addition, it is seen that FFR, iFR, and CFR decrease by increasing LL and decreasing MLD. Therefore, the morphological indices, LL/MLD and LL/MLD̂4, with the calculated conservative cut-off values equal to 5.5 and 3.6, are considered. Next, some controversial clinical hypotheses about the assessment of the severity of coronary stenosis are evaluated numerically. These include the examination of FFR, iFR, and CFR accuracies, investigating the effect of coronary hyperemia on iFR, as well as the reliability of the hybrid iFR-FFR decision-making strategy. The presented numerical model can also be used as a predictive tool to identify the atherosuseptible sites of arteries by calculating the time-averaged wall shear stress (TAWSS), oscillatory shear index (OSI), and relative residence time (RRT).

Agreement between nonculprit stenosis follow-up iFR and FFR after STEMI (iSTEMI substudy)

Objective

To evaluate agreement between instantaneous wave free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) for the functional assessment of nonculprit coronary stenoses at staged follow-up after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

Results

We measured iFR and FFR at staged follow-up in 112 STEMI patients with 146 nonculprit stenoses. Median interval between STEMI and follow-up was 16 (interquartile range 5–32) days. Agreement between iFR and FFR was 77% < 5 days after STEMI and 86% after ≥ 5 days (p = 0.19). Among cases with disagreement, the proportion of cases with hemodynamically significant iFR and non-significant FFR were different when assessed < 5 days (5 in 8, 63%) versus ≥ 5 days (3 in 15, 20%) after STEMI (p = 0.04). Overall classification agreement between iFR and FFR was comparable to that observed in stable patients. Time interval between STEMI and follow-up evaluation may impact agreement between iFR and FFR.

Algorithmic Versus Expert Human Interpretation of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Coronary Pressure-Wire Pull Back Data

Objectives

The aim of this study was to investigate whether algorithmic interpretation (AI) of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) pressure-wire pull back data would be noninferior to expert human interpretation.

Background

Interpretation of iFR pressure-wire pull back data can be complex and is subjective.

Methods

Fifteen human experts interpreted 1,008 iFR pull back traces (691 unique, 317 duplicate). For each trace, experts determined the hemodynamic appropriateness for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and, in such cases, the optimal physiological strategy for PCI. The heart team (HT) interpretation was determined by consensus of the individual expert opinions. The same 1,008 pull back traces were also interpreted algorithmically. The coprimary hypotheses of this study were that AI would be noninferior to the interpretation of the median expert human in determining: 1) the hemodynamic appropriateness for PCI; and 2) the physiological strategy for PCI.

Results

Regarding the hemodynamic appropriateness for PCI, the median expert human demonstrated 89.3% agreement with the HT in comparison with 89.4% for AI (p < 0.01 for noninferiority). Across the 372 cases judged as hemodynamically appropriate for PCI according to the HT, the median expert human demonstrated 88.8% agreement with the HT in comparison with 89.7% for AI (p < 0.0001 for noninferiority). On reproducibility testing, the HT opinion itself changed 1 in 10 times for both the appropriateness for PCI and the physiological PCI strategy. In contrast, AI showed no change.

Conclusions

AI of iFR pressure-wire pull back data was noninferior to expert human interpretation in determining both the hemodynamic appropriateness for PCI and the optimal physiological strategy for PCI.

DFENet: Deep Feature Enhancement Network for Accurate Calculation of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio

Accurate iFR calculation can provide important clinical information for intracoronary functional assessment without administration of adenosine, which needs to locate object points in the pressure waveforms: peak, the dichrotic notch and the pressure nadir at the end of diastole. We propose a DFENet that is capable of locating object points to calculate iFR accurately. We first design a SFRA into DFENet with the idea of DenseNet. To avoid overfitting when dealing with sparse signals, we set appropriate number of network layers, growth rate of dense blocks and compression rate of transition blocks in 1D DenseNet. Then, we introduce a feature enhancement mechanism named 1D SE block for enhancing inconspicuous but vital features from SFRA, which guides DFENet to focus on these important features via feature recalibration. Finally, we prove an effective interaction mode between SFRA and 1D SE block to locate object points accurately. Adequate experiments demonstrate that DFENet reaches a high accuracy of 94.22%, error of 5.6 on object point localization of 1D pressure waveforms that include 1457 samples from 100 subjects via a cross-validation of Leave-One-Out. Comparison experiment demonstrates that the accuracy of DFENet exceeds other state-of-the-art methods by 3.35%, and ablation experiment demonstrates that the accuracy of SFRA and cSE exceed the other variations by 6.63% and 2.56% respectively. Importantly, we reveal how the DFENet enhance inconspicuous but vital feature by applying gradient-weighted class activation maps. DFENet can locate object points accurately, which is applicable to other signal processing tasks, especially in health sensing.

&#8222;All-in-one&#8220; concept of functional myocardial revascularization in the cathlab

The concept of functional revascularization based on proving ischemia has been strongly recommended in the practical guidelines of both European and Czech Societies of Cardiology. In daily practice, application of this concept decreases the rate of coronary interventions. Though the best clinical evidence has been provided in patients with chronic coronary syndromes, recent data strongly advocate its usage also in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Invasive pressure-derived indices: hyperemic FFRmyo (fractional flow reserve of myocardium) and resting iFR (instantaneous wave-free ratio) require an interventional procedure by wiring the diseased vessel. FFRmyo 0.80 and iFR 0.89 mean functionally significant coronary disease mostly indicated for revascularization. Besides that, there are several non-invasive functional tests that may be used for detecting ischemia: perfusion scintigraphy, cardiovascular magnetic resonance, positron emission tomography and recently developed FFRCT or quantitative flow ratio (QFR). In routine practice, the concept of functional revascularization avoids unneccessary coronary interventions and, in case of functionally non-significant disease/stenoses, the patients may be treated conservatively with a very good prognosis. Currently, the &#8222;functionally complete revascularization&#8220;, instead of the anatomic one, might become the goal of our treatment as the all-in-one concept in the cathetrization laboratory.

Acquired Coronary Fenestration

OCT in a 74-year-old woman highlights how an angiographic coronary fenestration can be acquired through calcific nodule atherosclerosis in the coronary arteries. We demonstrate how tandem anatomic and physiologic assessment can be used to diagnose, functionally evaluate, and effectively treat this rare finding.

Reclassification of Treatment Strategy With Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve: A Substudy From the iFR-SWEDEHEART Trial

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to compare reclassification of treatment strategy following instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR).

BACKGROUND

iFR was noninferior to FFR in 2 large randomized controlled trials in guiding coronary revascularization. Reclassification of treatment strategy by FFR is well-studied, but similar reports on iFR are lacking.

METHODS

The iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome Trial) study randomized 2,037 participants with stable angina or acute coronary syndrome to treatment guided by iFR or FFR. Interventionalists entered the preferred treatment (optimal medical therapy [OMT], percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], or coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]) on the basis of coronary angiograms, and the final treatment decision was mandated by the iFR/FFR measurements.

RESULTS

In the iFR/FFR (n = 1,009/n = 1,004) populations, angiogram-based treatment approaches were similar (p = 0.50) with respect to OMT (38%/35%), PCI of 1 (37%/39%), 2 (15%/16%), and 3 vessels (2%/2%) and CABG (8%/8%). iFR and FFR reclassified 40% and 41% of patients, respectively (p = 0.78). The majority of reclassifications were conversion of PCI to OMT in both the iFR/FFR groups (31.4%/29.0%). Reclassification increased with increasing number of lesions evaluated (odds ratio per evaluated lesion for FFR: 1.46 [95% confidence interval: 1.22 to 1.76] vs. iFR 1.37 [95% confidence interval: 1.18 to 1.59]). Reclassification rates for patients with 1, 2, and 3 assessed vessels were 36%, 52%, and 53% (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Reclassification of treatment strategy of intermediate lesions was common and occurred in 40% of patients with iFR or FFR. The most frequent reclassification was conversion from PCI to OMT regardless of physiology modality. Irrespective of the physiological index reclassification of angiogram-based treatment strategy increased with the number of lesions evaluated.

Safety of the Deferral of Coronary Revascularization on the Basis of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements in Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients deferred from coronary revascularization on the basis of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements in stable angina pectoris (SAP) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS).

BACKGROUND

Assessment of coronary stenosis severity with pressure guidewires is recommended to determine the need for myocardial revascularization.

METHODS

The safety of deferral of coronary revascularization in the pooled per-protocol population (n = 4,486) of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) and iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome) randomized clinical trials was investigated. Patients were stratified according to revascularization decision making on the basis of iFR or FFR and to clinical presentation (SAP or ACS). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization at 1 year.

RESULTS

Coronary revascularization was deferred in 2,130 patients. Deferral was performed in 1,117 patients (50%) in the iFR group and 1,013 patients (45%) in the FFR group (p < 0.01). At 1 year, the MACE rate in the deferred population was similar between the iFR and FFR groups (4.12% vs. 4.05%; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 1.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 1.79; p = 0.60). A clinical presentation with ACS was associated with a higher MACE rate compared with SAP in deferred patients (5.91% vs. 3.64% in ACS and SAP, respectively; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 0.61 in favor of SAP; 95% confidence interval: 0.38 to 0.99; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, deferral of revascularization is equally safe with both iFR and FFR, with a low MACE rate of about 4%. Lesions were more frequently deferred when iFR was used to assess physiological significance. In deferred patients presenting with ACS, the event rate was significantly increased compared with SAP at 1 year.

Computational instantaneous wave-free ratio (IFR) for patient-specific coronary artery stenoses using 1D network models

In this work, we estimate the diagnostic threshold of the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) through the use of a one-dimensional haemodynamic framework. To this end, we first compared the computed fractional flow reserve (cFFR) predicted from a 1D computational framework with invasive clinical measurements. The framework shows excellent promise and utilises minimal patient data from a cohort of 52 patients with a total of 66 stenoses. The diagnostic accuracy of the cFFR model was 75.76%, with a sensitivity of 71.43%, a specificity of 77.78%, a positive predictive value of 60%, and a negative predictive value of 85.37%. The validated model was then used to estimate the diagnostic threshold of iFR. The model determined a quadratic relationship between cFFR and the ciFR. The iFR diagnostic threshold was determined to be 0.8910 from a receiver operating characteristic curve that is in the range of 0.89 to 0.9 that is normally reported in clinical studies.

Comparison of Different Diastolic Resting Indexes to iFR: Are They All Equal?

BACKGROUND

Pressure measurement for the duration of the wave-free period (WFP) is considered essential for resting-state physiological assessment of coronary stenosis severity using the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR).

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare other diastolic resting indexes to iFR.

METHODS

In the population of the VERIFY2 (Pd/Pa vs iFR in an Unselected Population Referred for Invasive Angiography) study, iFR calculated by proprietary software (Volcano Harvest, Volcano Corporation, Rancho Cordova, California) was compared with the ratio of resting distal coronary pressure and aortic pressure during the complete duration of diastole (dPR), 25% to 75% of diastole (dPR_25-75), and midpoint of diastole (dPR_mid), along with Matlab calculated iFR (iFR_matlab) and iFR-like indexes shortening the length of the WFP by 50 and 100 ms (iFR_-50ms and iFR_-100ms), respectively. Mutual differences, Spearman correlations, area under the curve values from receiver-operating characteristic analyses, and diagnostic performance with respect to iFR and fractional flow reserve (FFR) were calculated for all indexes.

RESULTS

Median iFR in 197 patients with 257 vessels was 0.91 with an interquartile range of 0.87 to 0.95. The mutual differences (± SD) with iFR were 0.006 ± 0.011 (dPR), 0.001 ± 0.007 (dPR_25-75), 0.001 ± 0.008 (dPR_mid), 0.005 ± 0.009 (iFR_matlab), 0.003 ± 0.008 (iFR_-50ms), and 0.001 ± 0.009 (iFR_-100ms). Correlations for all indexes with iFR were >0.99 (p < 0.001 for all). Area under the curve values for predicting iFR were >0.99 for all indexes as well. Diagnostic accuracy compared with FFR was 76% to 77% for all indexes including iFR.

CONCLUSIONS

All diastolic resting indexes tested were identical to iFR, both numerically and with respect to their agreement with FFR. A numerically equal value to iFR can be determined without restriction to the WFP. Cutoff values, guidelines, and clinical recommendations for iFR can therefore be extended to these other indexes. (Pd/Pa vs iFR in an Unselected Population Referred for Invasive Angiography [VERIFY2]; NCT02377310).

A case report of the clinical effect of chronic total occlusion recanalization on the instantaneous wave-free ratio in the donor artery

Introduction

Coronary physiology is recommended for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Previous cases have demonstrated changes in fractional flow reserve in a donor collateral vessel after PCI to a chronic total occlusion (CTO). The behaviour of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) in the context of CTO has not been described.

Case presentation

In this case, we share the first case of the effect of CTO recanalization on iFR in the donor artery, and show how iFR can reflect the amount of myocardium subtended by a stenosis.

Discussion

Instantaneous wave-free ratio is able to incorporate the amount of subtended myocardium in its quantification of coronary stenosis severity.

Fractional Flow Reserve/Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Discordance in Angiographically Intermediate Coronary Stenoses: An Analysis Using Doppler-Derived Coronary Flow Measurements

Objectives

The study sought to determine the coronary flow characteristics of angiographically intermediate stenoses classified as discordant by fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR).

Background

Discordance between FFR and iFR occurs in up to 20% of cases. No comparisons have been reported between the coronary flow characteristics of FFR/iFR discordant and angiographically unobstructed vessels.

Methods

Baseline and hyperemic coronary flow velocity and coronary flow reserve (CFR) were compared across 5 vessel groups: FFR+/iFR+ (108 vessels, n = 91), FFR–/iFR+ (28 vessels, n = 24), FFR+/iFR– (22 vessels, n = 22), FFR–/iFR– (208 vessels, n = 154), and an unobstructed vessel group (201 vessels, n = 153), in a post hoc analysis of the largest combined pressure and Doppler flow velocity registry (IDEAL [Iberian-Dutch-English] collaborators study).

Results

FFR disagreed with iFR in 14% (50 of 366). Baseline flow velocity was similar across all 5 vessel groups, including the unobstructed vessel group (p = 0.34 for variance). In FFR+/iFR– discordants, hyperemic flow velocity and CFR were similar to both FFR–/iFR– and unobstructed groups; 37.6 (interquartile range [IQR]: 26.1 to 50.4) cm/s vs. 40.0 [IQR: 29.7 to 52.3] cm/s and 42.2 [IQR: 33.8 to 53.2] cm/s and CFR 2.36 [IQR: 1.93 to 2.81] vs. 2.41 [IQR: 1.84 to 2.94] and 2.50 [IQR: 2.11 to 3.17], respectively (p > 0.05 for all). In FFR–/iFR+ discordants, hyperemic flow velocity, and CFR were similar to the FFR+/iFR+ group; 28.2 (IQR: 20.5 to 39.7) cm/s versus 23.5 (IQR: 16.4 to 34.9) cm/s and CFR 1.44 (IQR: 1.29 to 1.85) versus 1.39 (IQR: 1.06 to 1.88), respectively (p > 0.05 for all).

Conclusions

FFR/iFR disagreement was explained by differences in hyperemic coronary flow velocity. Furthermore, coronary stenoses classified as FFR+/iFR– demonstrated similar coronary flow characteristics to angiographically unobstructed vessels.

Clinical Outcomes Data for Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is a vasodilator-free index of coronary blood flow used for revascularization decision-making. iFR-based revascularization also had a decreased rate of adverse effects from vasodilators, shorter procedure times, and lower revascularization rates. iFR-pullback predicts post-percutaneous coronary intervention physiologic outcomes in tandem and diffuse coronary lesions. iFR may be particularly useful in patients with potential adenosine resistance, contraindications to adenosine, and multivessel or serial lesions. iFR is a useful tool both with and without fractional-flow reserve for revascularization planning.

Instantaneous wave-free ratio and fractional flow reserve in clinical practice

Objectives

To compare fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) measurements in an all-comer patient population with moderate coronary artery stenoses.

Background

Visual assessment of the severity of coronary artery stenoses is often discordant in moderate lesions. FFR allows reliable functional severity assessment in these cases but requires adenosine-induced hyperaemia with associated additional time, costs and side effects. The iFR is a hyperaemia-independent index.

Methods and results

Between November 2015 and February 2017, 356 consecutive patients were included in whom 515 coronary stenoses were measured using both iFR and FFR. Mean iFR and FFR were 0.90 ± 0.09 and 0.86 ± 0.08, respectively. iFR correlated well with FFR [r = 0.75; p < 0.001]. Receiver operating characteristic analysis identified an area under the curve of 0.92. An iFR-only strategy with a treatment cut-off ≤0.89 revealed a diagnostic classification agreement with the FFR-only strategy in 420 lesions (82%) with a sensitivity of 87%, a specificity of 80%, a positive predictive value of 56% and a negative predictive value of 96%.

Conclusions

Real-time iFR measurements have good negative predictive value compared to FFR, but moderate diagnostic accuracy (82%). It exposes fewer patients to adenosine, reduces procedure time and costs. Further prospective trials are needed to evaluate specific clinical settings, cut-off values and endpoints.

"What is the impact of utilizing so-called best practices in percutaneous coronary intervention?": an interview with Atul Gupta

Atul Gupta, MD speaks to Adam Price-Evans, Managing Commissioning Editor of Future Cardiology. Atul Gupta is the Global Chief Medical Officer for the business group Image Guided Therapy at Philips, providing medical guidance to Philips' clinical vision and strategy. As a practicing interventional and diagnostic radiologist, he also serves as a key external clinical voice for Image Guided Therapy. His key responsibilities include supporting innovation and product development in cardiology, peripheral vascular, surgical, oncology interventions, clinical education, office-based labs, medical affairs and new business development and ventures. He went to medical school and completed his postgraduate training in diagnostic radiology and a fellowship in interventional radiology. He maintains a clinical practice, performing interventional and diagnostic radiology in both hospital and office-based lab settings.

Influence of hydrostatic pressure on intracoronary indices of stenosis severity in vivo

BACKGROUND

An influence of hydrostatic pressure on intracoronary indices of stenosis severity in vitro was recently reported. We sought to analyze the influence of hydrostatic pressure, caused by the height difference between the distal and proximal pressure sensor after guidewire positioning in the interrogated vessel, on intracoronary pressure measurements in vivo.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In 30 coronary stenoses, intracoronary pressure measurements were performed in supine, left, and right lateral patient position. Height differences between the distal and proximal pressure sensor were measured by blinded observers. Measurement results of the position with the highest ("high") and lowest height difference ("low") were compared. In group "high", all measured indices were higher: mean difference of fractional flow reserve (FFR) 0.045 (SD 0.033, 95% CI 0.033-0.057, p < 0.0001), of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) 0.043 (SD 0.04, 95% CI 0.029-0.057, p < 0.0001), and of resting Pd/Pa 0.037 (SD 0.034, 95% CI 0.025-0.049, p < 0.0001). Addition of the physically expectable hydrostatic pressure to the distal coronary pressures of the control group abolished the differences: corrected ∆FFR - 0.006 (SD 0.027, 95% CI - 0.015 to 0.004, p = 0.26), corrected ∆Pd/Pa - 0.008 (SD 0.03, 95% CI - 0.019 to 0.003, p = 0.18). Adjustment for hydrostatic pressure of FFR values in a standard supine position increased all values in anterior vessels and decreased all values in posterior vessels. The mean changes of FFR due to adjustment were: LAD - 0.048 (SD 0.016), CX 0.02 (SD 0.009), RCA 0.02 (SD 0.021). Dichotomous severity classification changed in 12.9% of stenoses.

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrates a relevant influence of hydrostatic pressure on intracoronary indices of stenosis severity in vivo, caused by the height differences between distal and proximal pressure sensor.

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.

[Fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio for the physiological assessment of coronary artery stenosis in the catheterization laboratory: Practical tips]

In recent years, a large body of evidence has revealed the limitations of angiographic evaluation in determining the physiological significance of coronary stenosis, particularly when these are intermediate lesions. Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) guided by physiological assessment using fractional flow reserve (FFR) have been shown to reduce cardiovascular events when compared to angiography alone. Recently, another coronary physiologic parameter has been introduced: the "instantaneous wave-free ratio" (iFR). In this review, we will discuss the FFR, the iFR, and their use in the functional assessment of coronary stenosis in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. This review will cover theoretical aspects for non-interventional cardiologists, as well as practice points and common pitfalls related to coronary physiological assessment for interventional cardiologists.

Can Resting Indices Obviate the Need for Hyperemia and Promote the Routine Use of Physiologically Guided Revascularization?

This article assesses the data from contemporary human studies to address some of the common assumptions regarding hyperemic and baseline physiology in the context of the baseline pressure-derived index of instant wave-free ratio and the hyperemic index of fractional flow reserve. The article aims to determine if the available evidence supports the continued investigation, development, and use of baseline indices.

Differences between automatically detected and steady-state fractional flow reserve

BACKGROUND

Measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) has become a standard diagnostic tool in the catheterization laboratory. FFR evaluation studies were based on pressure recordings during steady-state maximum hyperemia. Commercially available computer systems detect the lowest Pd/Pa ratio automatically, which might not always be measured during steady-state hyperemia. We sought to compare the automatically detected FFR and true steady-state FFR.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Pressure measurement traces of 105 coronary lesions from 77 patients with intermediate coronary lesions or multivessel disease were reviewed. In all patients, hyperemia had been achieved by intravenous adenosine administration using a dosage of 140 µg/kg/min. In 42 lesions (40%) automatically detected FFR was lower than true steady-state FFR. Mean bias was 0.009 (standard deviation 0.015, limits of agreement -0.02, 0.037). In 4 lesions (3.8%) both methods lead to different treatment recommendations, in all 4 cases instantaneous wave-free ratio confirmed steady-state FFR.

CONCLUSIONS

Automatically detected FFR was slightly lower than steady-state FFR in more than one-third of cases. Consequently, interpretation of automatically detected FFR values closely below the cutoff value requires special attention.

Clinical validation of the resting pressure parameters in the assessment of functionally significant coronary stenosis; results of an independent, blinded comparison with fractional flow reserve

BACKGROUND

The role of resting pressure parameters, i.e. instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), and resting distal coronary pressure/aortic pressure (Pd/Pa) in assessing functionally significant stenosis remains controversial. We sought to assess the diagnostic performance of iFR and resting whole-cycle Pd/Pa in Asian patients.

METHODS

In this study, 238 consecutive lesions (no total occlusions) in which fractional flow reserve (FFR) was measured with both intravenous and intracoronary adenosine administration were included. Coded resting pressure data were sent to the core laboratory in which iFR was calculated in a blinded fashion.

RESULTS

FFR and iFR had unimodal distributions and the correlation was r = 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 0.82). In a receiver-operating-characteristic curve analysis, iFR had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.9 at FFR ≤ 0.80. The best cut-off value for iFR was 0.90 with a sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and diagnostic accuracy of 76%, 86%, 82% and 80%, and 82%, respectively. The resting whole-cycle Pd/Pa cut-off of 0.91 demonstrated a diagnostic accuracy of 82% (AUC 0.9). However, iFR had higher discriminatory power than the resting whole-cycle Pd/Pa.

CONCLUSION

Both iFR and resting whole-cycle Pd/Pa showed good diagnostic performance to define the functionally significant stenosis in an independent Asian cohort distributed unimodally and without total occlusions. However, further validation is needed to explore the areas of disagreement between different physiologic parameters prior to adoption of resting pressure parameters into routine clinical practice.