Search

01 augustus 2023, Contains fulltext : 295922.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), AIMS: Coronary flow reserve (CFR) assessment has proven clinical utility, but Doppler-based methods are sensitive to noise and operator bias, limiting their clinical applicability. The objective of the study is to expand the adoption of invasive Doppler CFR, through the development of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to automatically quantify coronary Doppler quality and track flow velocity. METHODS AND RESULTS: A neural network was trained on images extracted from coronary Doppler flow recordings to score signal quality and derive values for coronary flow velocity and CFR. The outputs were independently validated against expert consensus. Artificial intelligence successfully quantified Doppler signal quality, with high agreement with expert consensus (Spearman's rho: 0.94), and within individual experts. Artificial intelligence automatically tracked flow velocity with superior numerical agreement against experts, when compared with the current console algorithm [AI flow vs. expert flow bias -1.68 cm/s, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.13 to -1.23 cm/s, P < 0.001 with limits of agreement (LOA) -4.03 to 0.68 cm/s; console flow vs. expert flow bias -2.63 cm/s, 95% CI -3.74 to -1.52, P < 0.001, 95% LOA -8.45 to -3.19 cm/s]. Artificial intelligence yielded more precise CFR values [median absolute difference (MAD) against expert CFR: 4.0% for AI and 7.4% for console]. Artificial intelligence tracked lower-quality Doppler signals with lower variability (MAD against expert CFR 8.3% for AI and 16.7% for console). CONCLUSION: An AI-based system, trained by experts and independently validated, could assign a quality score to Doppler traces and derive coronary flow velocity and CFR. By making Doppler CFR more automated, precise, and operator-independent, AI could expand the clinical applicability of coronary microvascular assessment.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Coronary blood flow in humans is known to be predominantly diastolic. Small studies in animals and humans suggest that this is less pronounced or even reversed in the right coronary artery (RCA). AIMS: This study aimed to characterise the phasic patterns of coronary flow in the left versus right coronary arteries of patients undergoing invasive physiological assessment. METHODS: We analysed data from the Iberian-Dutch-English Collaborators (IDEAL) study. A total of 482 simultaneous pressure and flow measurements from 301 patients were included in our analysis. RESULTS: On average, coronary flow was higher in diastole both at rest and during hyperaemia in both the RCA and LCA (mean diastolic-to-systolic velocity ratio [DSVR] was, respectively, 1.85±0.70, 1.76±0.58, 1.53±0.34 and 1.58±0.43 for LCA(rest), LCA(hyp), RCA(rest) and RCA(hyp), p<0.001 for between-vessel comparisons). Although the type of RCA dominance affected the DSVR magnitude (RCA(dom)=1.55±0.35, RCA(co-dom)=1.40±0.27, RCA(non-dom)=1.35; standard deviation not reported as n=3), systolic flow was very rarely predominant (DSVR was greater than or equal to 1.00 in 472/482 cases [97.9%] overall), with equal prevalence in the LCA. Stenosis severity or microvascular dysfunction had a negligible impact on DSVR in both the RCA and LCA (DSVR x hyperaemic stenosis resistance R(2) =0.018, p=0.03 and DSVR x coronary flow reserve R(2) <0.001, p=0.98). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with coronary artery disease undergoing physiological assessment, diastolic flow predominance is seen in both left and right coronary arteries. Clinical interpretation of coronary physiological data should therefore not differ between the left and the right coronary systems.

Contains fulltext : 235303.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), INTRODUCTION: Recent randomised clinical trials showed benefit of non-culprit lesion revascularisation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. However, it remains unclear whether revascularisation should be performed at the index procedure or at a later stage. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) Guided Multivessel Revascularisation During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Myocardial Infarction trial is a multicentre, randomised controlled prospective open-label trial with blinded evaluation of endpoints. After successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), eligible STEMI patients with residual non-culprit lesions are randomised, to instantaneous wave-free ratio guided treatment of non-culprit lesions during the index procedure versus deferred cardiac MR-guided management within 4 days to 6 weeks. The primary endpoint of the study is the combined occurrence of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction and hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months follow-up. Clinical follow-up includes questionnaires at 3 months and outpatient visits at 6 months and 12 months after primary PCI. Furthermore, a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Permission to conduct this trial has been granted by the Medical Ethical Committee of the Amsterdam University Medical Centres (loc. VUmc, ID NL60107.029.16). The primary results of this trial will be shared in a main article and subgroup analyses or spin-off studies will be shared in secondary papers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03298659.

Contains fulltext : 215204.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: Group 1: 55 patients with severe AS and intermediate coronary stenoses treated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) were included. Group 2: 85 patients with intermediate coronary stenoses and no AS treated with percutaneous coronary intervention were included. Coronary pressure and flow were measured at rest and during hyperemia in both groups, before and after TAVI (group 1) and before and after percutaneous coronary intervention (group 2). RESULTS: Microvascular resistance over the wave-free period of diastole increased significantly post-TAVI (pre-TAVI, 2.71+/-1.4 mm Hg.cm.s(-1) versus post-TAVI 3.04+/-1.6 mm Hg.cm.s(-1) [P=0.03]). Microvascular reserve over the wave-free period of diastole significantly improved post-TAVI (pre-TAVI 1.88+/-1.0 versus post-TAVI 2.09+/-0.8 [P=0.003]); this was independent of the severity of the underlying coronary stenosis. The change in microvascular resistance post-TAVI was equivalent to that produced by stenting a coronary lesion with an instantaneous wave-free ratio of

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate sex differences in procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR)- and fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided revascularization strategies. BACKGROUND: An iFR-guided strategy has shown a lower revascularization rate than an FFR-guided strategy, without differences in clinical outcomes. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate stenosis to guide Revascularization) study, in which 601 women and 1,891 men were randomized to iFR- or FFR-guided strategy. The primary endpoint was 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. RESULTS: Among the entire population, women had a lower number of functionally significant lesions per patient (0.31 +/- 0.51 vs. 0.43 +/- 0.59; p < 0.001) and less frequently underwent revascularization than men (42.1% vs. 53.1%; p < 0.001). There was no difference in mean iFR value according to sex (0.91 +/- 0.09 vs. 0.91 +/- 0.10; p = 0.442). However, the mean FFR value was lower in men than in women (0.83 +/- 0.09 vs. 0.85 +/- 0.10; p = 0.001). In men, an FFR-guided strategy was associated with a higher rate of revascularization than an iFR-guided strategy (57.1% vs. 49.3%; p = 0.001), but this difference was not observed in women (41.4% vs. 42.6%; p = 0.757). There was no difference in MACE rates between iFR- and FFR-guided strategies in both women (5.4% vs. 5.6%, adjusted hazard ratio: 1.10; 95% confidence interval: 0.50 to 2.43; p = 0.805) and men (6.6% vs. 7.0%, adjusted hazard ratio: 0.98; 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 1.46; p = 0.919). CONCLUSIONS: An FFR-guided strategy was associated with a higher rate of revascularization than iFR-guided strategy in men, but not in women. However, iFR- and FFR-guided strategies showed comparable clinical outcomes, regardless of sex. (Functional Lesion Assessment of Inter

Contains fulltext : 209410.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Physicians are not always comfortable deferring treatment of a stenosis in the left anterior descending (LAD) artery because of the perception that there is a high risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). The authors describe, using the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) trial, MACE rates when LAD lesions are deferred, guided by physiological assessment using fractional flow reserve (FFR) or the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to establish the safety of deferring treatment in the LAD using FFR or iFR within the DEFINE-FLAIR trial. METHODS: MACE rates at 1 year were compared between groups (iFR and FFR) in patients whose physiological assessment led to LAD lesions being deferred. MACE was defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and unplanned revascularization at 1 year. Patients, and staff performing follow-up, were blinded to whether the decision was made with FFR or iFR. Outcomes were adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS: A total of 872 patients had lesions deferred in the LAD (421 guided by FFR, 451 guided by iFR). The event rate with iFR was significantly lower than with FFR (2.44% vs. 5.26%; adjusted HR: 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22 to 0.95; p = 0.04). This was driven by significantly lower unplanned revascularization with iFR and numerically lower MI (unplanned revascularization: 2.22% iFR vs. 4.99% FFR; adjusted HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.93; p = 0.03; MI: 0.44% iFR vs. 2.14% FFR; adjusted HR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.07; p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: iFR-guided deferral appears to be safe for patients with LAD lesions. Patients in whom iFR-guided deferral was performed had statistically significantly lower event rates than those with FFR-guided deferral.

Contains fulltext : 196266.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), 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 t

Optical coherence tomography based computational flow dynamic (CFD) modeling provides detailed information about the local flow behavior in stented/scaffolded vessel segments. Our aim is to investigate the in-vivo effect of strut thickness and strut protrusion on endothelial wall shear stress (ESS) distribution in ArterioSorb Absorbable Drug-Eluting Scaffold (ArterioSorb) and Absorb everolimus-eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold (Absorb) devices that struts with similar morphology (quadratic structure) but different thickness. In three animals, six coronary arteries were treated with ArterioSorb. At different six animals, six coronary arteries were treated with Absorb. Following three-dimensional(3D) reconstruction of the coronary arteries, Newtonian steady flow simulation was performed and the ESS were estimated. Mixed effects models were used to compare ESS distribution in the two devices. There were 4591 struts in the analyzed 477 cross-sections in Absorb (strut thickness = 157 µm) and 3105 struts in 429 cross-sections in ArterioSorb (strut thickness = 95 µm) for the protrusion analysis. In cross-section level analysis, there was significant difference between the scaffolds in the protrusion distances. The protrusion was higher in Absorb (97% of the strut thickness) than in ArterioSorb (88% of the strut thickness). ESS was significantly higher in ArterioSorb (1.52 ± 0.34 Pa) than in Absorb (0.73 ± 2.19 Pa) (p = 0.001). Low- and very-low ESS data were seen more often in Absorb than in ArterioSorb. ArterioSorb is associated with a more favorable ESS distribution compared to the Absorb. These differences should be attributed to different strut thickness/strut protrusion that has significant effect on shear stress distribution.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Coronary revascularization guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is associated with better patient outcomes after the procedure than revascularization guided by angiography alone. It is unknown whether the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), an alternative measure that does not require the administration of adenosine, will offer benefits similar to those of FFR. METHODS: We randomly assigned 2492 patients with coronary artery disease, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo either iFR-guided or FFR-guided coronary revascularization. The primary end point was the 1-year risk of major adverse cardiac events, which were a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. The trial was designed to show the noninferiority of iFR to FFR, with a margin of 3.4 percentage points for the difference in risk. RESULTS: At 1 year, the primary end point had occurred in 78 of 1148 patients (6.8%) in the iFR group and in 83 of 1182 patients (7.0%) in the FFR group (difference in risk, -0.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.3 to 1.8; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.33; P=0.78). The risk of each component of the primary end point and of death from cardiovascular or noncardiovascular causes did not differ significantly between the groups. The number of patients who had adverse procedural symptoms and clinical signs was significantly lower in the iFR group than in the FFR group (39 patients [3.1%] vs. 385 patients [30.8%], P<0.001), and the median procedural time was significantly shorter (40.5 minutes vs. 45.0 minutes, P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Coronary revascularization guided by iFR was noninferior to revascularization guided by FFR with respect to the risk of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year. The rate of adverse procedural signs and symptoms was lower and the procedural time was shorter with iFR than with FFR. (Funded by Philips Volcano; DEFINE-FLAIR ClinicalTrials.gov number, N

BACKGROUND Coronary revascularization guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is associated with better patient outcomes after the procedure than revascularization guided by angiography alone. It is unknown whether the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), an alternative measure that does not require the administration of adenosine, will offer benefits similar to those of FFR. METHODS We randomly assigned 2492 patients with coronary artery disease, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo either iFR-guided or FFR-guided coronary revascularization. The primary end point was the 1-year risk of major adverse cardiac events, which were a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. The trial was designed to show the noninferiority of iFR to FFR, with a margin of 3.4 percentage points for the difference in risk. RESULTS At 1 year, the primary end point had occurred in 78 of 1148 patients (6.8%) in the iFR group and in 83 of 1182 patients (7.0%) in the FFR group (difference in risk, -0.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.3 to 1.8; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.33; P = 0.78). The risk of each component of the primary end point and of death from cardiovascular or noncardiovascular causes did not differ significantly between the groups. The number of patients who had adverse procedural symptoms and clinical signs was significantly lower in the iFR group than in the FFR group (39 patients [3.1%] vs. 385 patients [30.8%], P<0.001), and the median procedural time was significantly shorter (40.5 minutes vs. 45.0 minutes, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Coronary revascularization guided by iFR was noninferior to revascularization guided by FFR with respect to the risk of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year. The rate of adverse procedural signs and symptoms was lower and the procedural time was shorter with iFR than with FFR.