Search

Objectives: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) computes fractional flow reserve (FFR) based on invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Residual QFR estimates post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) FFR. This study sought to assess the relationship of residual QFR with post-PCI FFR., Methods: Residual QFR analysis, using pre-PCI ICA, was attempted in 159 vessels with post-PCI FFR. QFR lesion location was matched with the PCI location to simulate the performed intervention and allow computation of residual QFR. A post-PCI FFR < 0.90 was used to define a suboptimal PCI result., Results: Residual QFR computation was successful in 128 (81%) vessels. Median residual QFR was higher than post-PCI FFR (0.96 Q1-Q3: 0.91-0.99 vs. 0.91 Q1-Q3: 0.86-0.96, p < 0.001). A significant correlation and agreement were observed between residual QFR and post-PCI FFR ( R  = 0.56 and intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.47, p < 0.001 for both). Following PCI, an FFR < 0.90 was observed in 54 (42%) vessels. Specificity, positive predictive value, sensitivity, and negative predictive value of residual QFR for assessment of the PCI result were 96% (95% confidence interval (CI): 87-99%), 89% (95% CI: 72-96%), 44% (95% CI: 31-59%), and 70% (95% CI: 65-75%), respectively. Residual QFR had an accuracy of 74% (95% CI: 66-82%) and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.71-0.86)., Conclusions: A significant correlation and agreement between residual QFR and post-PCI FFR were observed. Residual QFR ≥ 0.90 did not necessarily commensurate with a satisfactory PCI (post-PCI FFR ≥ 0.90). In contrast, residual QFR exhibited a high specificity for prediction of a suboptimal PCI result., Competing Interests: Dr. Knaapen has received research grants from HeartFlow. All other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Pepijn A. van Diemen et al.)

Background: Quantitative myocardial perfusion imaging is increasingly used for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Quantitative perfusion imaging allows to noninvasively calculate fractional flow reserve (FFR). This so-called relative flow reserve (RFR) is defined as the ratio of hyperemic myocardial blood flow (MBF) in a stenotic area to hyperemic MBF in a normal perfused area. The aim of this study was to assess the value of RFR in the detection of significant coronary artery disease., Methods and Results: From a clinical population of patients with suspected coronary artery disease who underwent oxygen-15-labeled water cardiac positron emission tomography and invasive coronary angiography, 92 patients with single- or 2-vessel disease were included. Intermediate lesions (diameter stenosis, 30%-90%; n=75) were interrogated by FFR. Thirty-eight (41%) vessels were deemed hemodynamically significant (>90% stenosis or FFR≤0.80). Hyperemic MBF, coronary flow reserve, and RFR were lower for vessels with a hemodynamically significant lesion (2.01±0.78 versus 2.90±1.16 mL·min(-1)·g(-1); P<0.001, 2.27±1.03 versus 3.10±1.29; P<0.001, and 0.67±0.23 versus 0.93±0.15; P<0.001, respectively). The correlation between RFR and FFR was moderate (r=0.54; P<0.01). Receiver operator characteristic curve analysis showed an area under the curve of 0.82 for RFR, which was not significantly higher compared with that for hyperemic MBF and coronary flow reserve (0.76; P=0.32 and 0.72; P=0.08, respectively)., Conclusions: Noninvasive estimation of FFR by quantitative perfusion positron emission tomography by calculating RFR is feasible, yet only a trend toward a slight improvement of diagnostic accuracy compared with hyperemic MBF assessment was determined., (© 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Objectives: This study sought to examine the diagnostic accuracy of the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and resting distal coronary artery pressure/aortic pressure (Pd/Pa) with respect to hyperemic fractional flow reserve (FFR) in a core laboratory-based multicenter collaborative study., Background: FFR is an index of the severity of coronary stenosis that has been clinically validated in 3 prospective randomized trials. iFR and Pd/Pa are nonhyperemic pressure-derived indices of the severity of stenosis with discordant reports regarding their accuracy with respect to FFR., Methods: iFR, resting Pd/Pa, and FFR were measured in 1,768 patients from 15 clinical sites. An independent physiology core laboratory performed blinded off-line analysis of all raw data. The primary objectives were to determine specific iFR and Pd/Pa thresholds with ≥90% accuracy in predicting ischemic versus nonischemic FFR (on the basis of an FFR cut point of 0.80) and the proportion of patients falling beyond those thresholds., Results: Of 1,974 submitted lesions, 381 (19.3%) were excluded because of suboptimal acquisition, leaving 1,593 for final analysis. On receiver-operating characteristic analysis, the optimal iFR cut point for FFR ≤0.80 was 0.90 (C statistic: 0.81 [95% confidence interval: 0.79 to 0.83]; overall accuracy: 80.4%) and for Pd/Pa was 0.92 (C statistic: 0.82 [95% confidence interval: 0.80 to 0.84]; overall accuracy: 81.5%), with no significant difference between these resting measures. iFR and Pd/Pa had ≥90% accuracy to predict a positive or negative FFR in 64.9% (62.6% to 67.3%) and 48.3% (45.6% to 50.5%) of lesions, respectively., Conclusions: This comprehensive core laboratory analysis comparing iFR and Pd/Pa with FFR demonstrated an overall accuracy of ~80% for both nonhyperemic indices, which can be improved to ≥90% in a subset of lesions. Clinical outcome studies are required to determine whether the use of iFR or Pd/Pa might obviate the need for hyperemia in selected patients., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to examine the clinical performance of and theoretical basis for the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) approximation to the fractional flow reserve (FFR)., Background: Recent work has proposed iFR as a vasodilation-free alternative to FFR for making mechanical revascularization decisions. Its fundamental basis is the assumption that diastolic resting myocardial resistance equals mean hyperemic resistance., Methods: Pressure-only and combined pressure-flow clinical data from several centers were studied both empirically and by using pressure-flow physiology. A Monte Carlo simulation was performed by repeatedly selecting random parameters as if drawing from a cohort of hypothetical patients, using the reported ranges of these physiologic variables., Results: We aggregated observations of 1,129 patients, including 120 with combined pressure-flow data. Separately, we performed 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations. Clinical data showed that iFR was +0.09 higher than FFR on average, with ±0.17 limits of agreement. Diastolic resting resistance was 2.5 ± 1.0 times higher than mean hyperemic resistance in patients. Without invoking wave mechanics, classic pressure-flow physiology explained clinical observations well, with a coefficient of determination of >0.9. Nearly identical scatter of iFR versus FFR was seen between simulation and patient observations, thereby supporting our model., Conclusions: iFR provides both a biased estimate of FFR, on average, and an uncertain estimate of FFR in individual cases. Diastolic resting myocardial resistance does not equal mean hyperemic resistance, thereby contravening the most basic condition on which iFR depends. Fundamental relationships of coronary pressure and flow explain the iFR approximation without invoking wave mechanics., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: This study investigates whether increased right ventricular (RV) pressure in pulmonary hypertension (PH) impairs right coronary artery (RCA) flow and RV perfusion., Methods: In 25 subjects, five patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension, nine patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary arterial hypertension, and 11 healthy controls, flow of the RCA and left anterior descending (LAD) artery was measured with MR flow quantification., Results: In PH, RCA peak systolic and mean systolic flow were lower, 1.02 +/- 0.62 mL/s and 0.42 +/- 0.30 mL/s, than peak and mean diastolic flow, 2.99 +/- 1.97 mL/s (P < 0.001) and 1.73 +/- 0.97 mL/s (P < 0.001); a pattern similar to the LAD. In contrast, in controls, RCA peak and mean flow in systole, 1.63 +/- 0.58 mL/s and 0.72 +/- 0.23 mL/s, were comparable to peak and mean flow in diastole, 1.72 +/- 0.48 mL/s and 0.93 +/- 0.28 mL/s (NS). The systolic-to-diastolic flow ratio in the RCA, and mean flow per gram RV tissue, were inversely related to RV mass, R = -0.61 (P = 0.009), and R = -0.73 (P < 0.001) and to RV pressure, R = -0.83 (P < 0.001), and R = -0.57 (P = 0.033)., Conclusion: Although in controls, RCA flow is similar in systole and diastole, in PH there is systolic flow impediment, which is proportional to RV pressure and mass. In patients with severe RV hypertrophy total mean flow is reduced.

Aims: The present study compared microvascular resistance (MR) of viable myocardium in infarct areas with those in reference areas in patients with chronic myocardial infarction (MI)., Methods and Results: In 27 patients, MR (ratio distal coronary pressure and flow) of reference and viable infarct areas was calculated at baseline and during hyperaemia. H2 15O positron emission tomography (PET) was used to provide myocardial blood flow measurements. In infarct regions, H2 15O PET solely measures flow in viable myocardium, excluding flow in scar tissue. Distal coronary pressure was measured with a pressure wire in the infarct-related and reference artery. The average time between PET study and infarction was 3.3+/-4.4 years. Mean hyperaemic distal coronary pressure was significantly lower in the infarct-related artery. MR varied considerably between patients and was significantly higher in infarct areas at baseline (135+/-38 vs. 118+/-29 mmHg mL min/mL; P<0.05), but not during hyperaemia (39+/-18 vs. 35+/-11 mmHg mL min/mL). The correlation between MR in infarct and reference areas was significant., Conclusion: To determine MR, distal coronary pressure measurements should be used. Hyperaemic MR in viable myocardium within the infarcted area is not higher when compared with the reference area. This supports the application of the established fractional flow reserve cut-off value in the setting of chronic MI.

To evaluate the hemodynamic impact of coronary stenoses, the fractional (FFR) or coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) usually is measured. The combined measurement of instantaneous flow velocity and pressure gradient (v-dp relation) is rarely used in humans. We derived from the v-dp relation a new index, dp(v50) (pressure gradient at flow velocity of 50 cm/s), and compared the diagnostic performance of dp(v50), CFVR, and FFR. Before coronary angiography was performed, patients underwent noninvasive stress testing. In all coronary vessels with an intermediate or severe stenosis, the flow velocity, aortic, and distal coronary pressure were measured simultaneously with a Doppler and pressure guidewire after induction of hyperemia. After regression analysis of all middiastolic flow velocity and pressure gradient data, the dp(v50) was calculated. With the use of the results of noninvasive stress testing, the dp(v50) cutoff value was established at 22.4 mmHg. In 77 patients, 124 coronary vessels with a mean 39% (SD 19) diameter stenosis were analyzed. In 43 stenoses, ischemia was detected. We found a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 56%, 86%, and 76% for CFVR; 77%, 99%, and 91% for FFR; and 95%, 95%, and 95% for dp(v50). To establish that dp(v50) is not dependent on maximal hyperemia, dp(v50) was recalculated after omission of the highest quartile of flow velocity data, showing a difference of 3%. We found that dp(v50) provided the highest sensitivity and accuracy compared with FFR and CFVR in the assessment of coronary stenoses. In contrast to CFVR and FFR, assessment of dp(v50) is not dependent on maximal hyperemia.

Objectives: We assessed the feasibility and reproducibility of the instantaneous diastolic coronary flow velocity-pressure gradient relation to characterize different degrees of coronary stenoses., Background: Assessment of the hemodynamic significance of coronary stenoses can be difficult. Using sensor-tipped guidewires, various physiologic indexes can be determined in the catheterization laboratory. Each of the current methods, however, has limitations., Methods: After positioning a Doppler flow wire and a pressure wire distal of a coronary stenosis, the flow velocity signals and the proximal and distal pressure were sampled simultaneously, at baseline and after intracoronary administration of adenosine. The instantaneous diastolic flow velocity and pressure gradient of single cardiac cycles at baseline, at maximal and intermediate hyperemia were plotted. Data were fitted with a regression line using the equation: Delta P = 0 +kv+Sv(2). Measurements were performed in 11 normal coronary arteries, 20 intermediate stenoses and in 7 severe stenoses before and after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty plus stenting., Results: We found significant differences between normal coronary arteries, intermediate and severe stenoses. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty nearly normalized the highly abnormal flow-pressure gradient relation in the severe stenoses. A high degree of reproducibility was observed. In 3% of the measurements, analysis was not possible due to the occurrence of pressure drift or bad flow velocity signals., Conclusions: It is feasible to assess the diastolic flow velocity-pressure gradient relation over a wide range of stenoses. It characterizes the hemodynamics of epicardial coronary stenoses and allows discrimination between normal coronary arteries, intermediate and severe stenoses.