Search

OBJECTIVES: It is unknown whether computed tomographic coronary angiography (CTCA) can be used to perform ultraselective invasive coronary angiography (ICA) by only visualizing the abnormal coronary artery on CTCA and defer visualization of the normal contralateral coronary artery. This study assessed the accuracy of CTCA in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) on CTCA limited to either the left (LCA) or right coronary artery (RCA) in predicting a contralateral coronary artery without abnormalities on CTCA determined to be normal by ICA. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included patients with CAD limited to the LCA or RCA on CTCA. Primary endpoint was the accuracy of CTCA to predict a contralateral coronary artery without abnormalities on CTCA to be normal by ICA. Secondary endpoints were potential reductions in procedure time and radiation exposure if an ultraselective ICA approach would be used compared to standard ICA. RESULTS: In total, 202 patients were included. CTCA was correct in predicting a normal contralateral coronary artery in 201 of the 202 patients (99.5%). Deferring ICA of the normal contralateral coronary artery on CTCA resulted in a potential reduction in procedure time and dose area product of 4.22 ± 2.67 minutes (61 ± 16% reduction) and 1501 ± 1304 mGy•cm² (29 ± 13% reduction). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study, CTCA was extremely accurate in predicting a normal contralateral coronary artery in patients with LCA- or RCA-limited CAD on CTCA. A potential CTCA-guided ultraselective ICA approach was feasible and would have led to a considerable decrease in procedure time and radiation exposure.

Background: \ud 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).\ud \ud Objectives: \ud The aim of this study was to compare other diastolic resting indexes to iFR.\ud \ud Methods: \ud 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 (dPR25–75), and midpoint of diastole (dPRmid), along with Matlab calculated iFR (iFRmatlab) 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.\ud \ud Results: \ud 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 (dPR25–75), 0.001 ± 0.008 (dPRmid), 0.005 ± 0.009 (iFRmatlab), 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.\ud \ud Conclusions: \ud 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).

The blood pressure changes induced by the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) are expected to create clinical improvement in terms of coronary perfusion and myocardial oxygen consumption. However, the measured effects reported in literature are inconsistent. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of ischemia on IABP efficacy in healthy hearts and in shock. Twelve slaughterhouse porcine hearts (hearts 1-12) were connected to an external circulatory system, while physiologic cardiac performance was restored. Different clinical scenarios, ranging from healthy to cardiogenic shock, were simulated by step-wise administration of negative inotropic drugs. In hearts 7-12, severe global myocardial ischemia superimposed upon the decreased contractile states was created. IABP support was applied in all hearts under all conditions. Without ischemia, the IABP induced a mild increase in coronary blood flow and cardiac output. These effects were strongly augmented in the presence of persisting ischemia, where coronary blood flow increased by 49 ± 24% (P

Summary Background In the Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) study, fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improved outcome compared with angiography-guided PCI for up to 2 years of follow-up. The aim in this study was to investigate whether the favourable clinical outcome with the FFR-guided PCI in the FAME study persisted over a 5-year follow-up. Methods The FAME study was a multicentre trial done in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK, and the USA. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with multivessel coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to undergo angiography-guided PCI or FFR-guided PCI. Before randomisation, stenoses requiring PCI were identified on the angiogram. Patients allocated to angiography-guided PCI had revascularisation of all identified stenoses. Patients allocated to FFR-guided PCI had FFR measurements of all stenotic arteries and PCI was done only if FFR was 0·80 or less. No one was masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events at 1 year, and the data for the 5-year follow-up are reported here. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00267774. Findings After 5 years, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 31% of patients (154 of 496) in the angiography-guided group versus 28% (143 of 509 patients) in the FFR-guided group (relative risk 0·91, 95% CI 0·75–1·10; p=0·31). The number of stents placed per patient was significantly higher in the angiography-guided group than in the FFR-guided group (mean 2·7 [SD 1·2] vs 1·9 [1·3], p Interpretation The results confirm the long-term safety of FFR-guided PCI in patients with multivessel disease. A strategy of FFR-guided PCI resulted in a significant decrease of major adverse cardiac events for up to 2 years after the index procedure. From 2 years to 5 years, the risks for both groups developed similarly. This clinical outcome in the FFR-guided group was achieved with a lower number of stented arteries and less resource use. These results indicate that FFR guidance of multivessel PCI should be the standard of care in most patients. Funding St Jude Medical, Friends of the Heart Foundation, and Medtronic.