Search

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the current gold standard invasive assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD). FFR reports coronary blood flow (CBF) as a fraction of a hypothetical and unknown normal value. Although used routinely to diagnose CAD and guide treatment, how accurately FFR predicts actual CBF changes remains unknown. In this study, we compared fractional CBF with absolute CBF (aCBF, in ml min−1), measured with a computational method during standard angiography and pressure wire assessment, on 203 diseased arteries (143 patients). We found a substantial correlation between the two measurements (r = 0.89 and Cohen’s kappa = 0.71). Concordance between fractional and absolute CBF reduction was high when FFR was >0.80 (91%) but reduced when FFR was ≤0.80 (81%), 0.70–0.80 (68%) and, particularly, 0.75–0.80 (62%). Discordance was associated with coronary microvascular resistance, vessel diameter and mass of myocardium subtended, all factors to which FFR is agnostic. Assessment of aCBF complements FFR and may be valuable to assess CBF, particularly in cases within the FFR ‘gray zone’.

International audience

Three dimensional (3D) coronary anatomy, reconstructed from coronary angiography (CA), is now being used as the basis to compute ‘virtual’ fractional flow reserve (vFFR), and thereby guide treatment decisions in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Reconstruction accuracy is therefore important. Yet the methods required remain poorly validated. Furthermore, the magnitude of vFFR error arising from reconstruction is unkown. We aimed to validate a method for 3D CA reconstruction and determine the effect this had upon the accuracy of vFFR. Clinically realistic coronary phantom models were created comprosing seven standard stenoses in aluminium and 15 patient-based 3D-printed, imaged with CA, three times, according to standard clinical protocols, yielding 66 datasets. Each was reconstructed using epipolar line projection and intersection. All reconstructions were compared against the real phantom models in terms of minimal lumen diameter, centreline and surface similarity. 3D-printed reconstructions (n = 45) and the reference files from which they were printed underwent vFFR computation, and the results were compared. The average error in reconstructing minimum lumen diameter (MLD) was 0.05 (± 0.03 mm) which was

Background\ud \ud Using fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) improves clinical decision making but remains under-used. Virtual FFR (vFFR, computed from angiographic images) permits physiological assessment without a pressure wire and can be extended to virtual coronary intervention (VCI) facilitating treatment planning. This study investigated the effect of adding vFFR and VCI to angiography in patient assessment and management.\ud \ud \ud \ud Methods\ud \ud Two cardiologists independently reviewed clinical data and angiograms of 50 patients undergoing invasive management of coronary syndromes, and their management plans were recorded. The vFFRs were computed and disclosed, and the cardiologists submitted revised plans. Then, using VCI, the physiological results of various interventional strategies were shown, and further revision was invited.\ud \ud \ud \ud Results\ud \ud Disclosure of vFFR led to a change in strategy in 27%. VCI led to a change in stent size in 48%. Disclosure of vFFR and VCI resulted in an increase in operator confidence in their decision. Twelve cases were reviewed by six additional cardiologists. There was limited agreement in the management plans between cardiologists based upon either angiography (kappa=0.31) or vFFR (kappa=0.39).\ud \ud \ud \ud Conclusions\ud \ud vFFR has the potential to alter decision making, and VCI can guide stent sizing. However, variability in management strategy remains considerable between operators, even when presented with the same anatomical and physiological data.

The current management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is with an invasive strategy to guide treatment. However, identifying the lesions which are physiologically significant can be challenging. Non-invasive imaging is generally not appropriate or timely in the acute setting, so the decision is generally based upon visual assessment of the angiogram, supplemented in a small minority by invasive pressure wire studies using fractional flow reserve (FFR) or related indices. Whilst pressure wire usage is slowly increasing, it is not feasible in many vessels, patients and situations. Limited evidence for the use of FFR in non-ST elevation (NSTE) ACS suggests a 25% change in management, compared with traditional assessment, with a shift from more to less extensive revascularisation. Virtual (computed) FFR (vFFR), which uses a 3D model of the coronary arteries constructed from the invasive angiogram, and application of the physical laws of fluid flow, has the potential to be used more widely in this situation. It is less invasive, fast and can be integrated into catheter laboratory software. For severe lesions, or mild disease, it is probably not required, but it could improve the management of moderate disease in 'real time' for patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS), and in bystander disease in ST elevation myocardial infarction. Its practicability and impact in the acute setting need to be tested, but the underpinning science and potential benefits for rapid and streamlined decision-making are enticing.

Aims\ud \ud Ischaemic heart disease is the reduction of myocardial blood flow, caused by epicardial and/or microvascular disease. Both are common and prognostically important conditions, with distinct guideline-indicated management. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the current gold-standard assessment of epicardial coronary disease, but is only a surrogate of flow and only predicts percentage flow changes. It cannot assess absolute (volumetric) flow or microvascular disease. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a novel method that predicts absolute coronary blood flow and microvascular resistance (MVR) in the catheter laboratory.\ud \ud \ud Methods and Results\ud \ud A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model was used to predict absolute coronary flow (QCFD) and coronary microvascular resistance (MVR) using data from routine invasive angiography and pressure-wire assessment. QCFD was validated in an in vitro flow circuit which incorporated patient-specific, 3-D printed coronary arteries; and then in vivo, in patients with coronary disease. In vitro, QCFD agreed closely with the experimental flow over all flow rates (bias +2.08 mL/min; 95% CI (error range) -4.7 to + 8.8 mL/min; R2=0.999, p

International audience

The role of ‘stand-alone’ coronary angiography (CAG) in the management of patients with chronic coronary syndromes is the subject of debate, with arguments for its replacement with CT angiography on the one hand and its confinement to the interventional cardiac catheter laboratory on the other. Nevertheless, it remains the standard of care in most centres. Recently, computational methods have been developed in which the laws of fluid dynamics can be applied to angiographic images to yield ‘virtual’ (computed) measures of blood flow, such as fractional flow reserve. Together with the CAG itself, this technology can provide an ‘all-in-one’ anatomical and functional investigation, which is particularly useful in the case of borderline lesions. It can add to the diagnostic value of CAG by providing increased precision and reduce the need for further non-invasive and functional tests of ischaemia, at minimal cost. In this paper, we place this technology in context, with emphasis on its potential to become established in the diagnostic workup of patients with suspected coronary artery disease, particularly in the non-interventional setting. We discuss the derivation and reliability of angiographically derived fractional flow reserve (CAG-FFR) as well as its limitations and how CAG-FFR could be integrated within existing national guidance. The assessment of coronary physiology may no longer be the preserve of the interventional cardiologist.

A novel enoxaparin regimen consisting of intra-arterial bolus (0.75 mg/kg) followed by intravenous infusion (0.75 mg/kg/6 hours) has been developed as a possible solution to the delayed absorption of oral P2Y12 inhibitors in opiate-treated ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary angioplasty. We aimed to study the feasibility of this regimen as an alternative to standard-of-care treatment (SOC) with unfractionated heparin ± glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonist (GPI). One hundred opiate-treated patients presenting with STEMI and accepted for primary angioplasty were randomized (1:1) to either enoxaparin or SOC. Fifty patients were allocated enoxaparin (median age 61, 40% females) and 49 allocated SOC (median age 62, 22% females). One developed stroke before angiography and was withdrawn. One SOC patient had a gastrointestinal bleed resulting in 1 g drop in hemoglobin and early cessation of GPI infusion. Two enoxaparin patients had transient minor bleeding: one transient gingival bleed and one episode of coffee ground vomit with no hemoglobin drop or hemodynamic instability. Two SOC and no enoxaparin group patients had acute stent thrombosis. These preliminary data support further study of this novel 6-hour enoxaparin regimen in opiate-treated PPCI patients.

Evidence robustly demonstrates that ischemia, rather than anatomy, is the optimal target for coronary revascularization. In the cardiac catheter laboratory, fractional flow reserve (FFR) and corresponding diastolic indices are regarded as the gold standard for physiological lesion assessment and ischemia detection (Table 1). Yet, despite a wealth of supporting data and indications in international guidelines, the use of FFR remains surprisingly low in the diagnostic assessment of coronary artery disease across the world.1, 2 To address this, multiple groups have developed methods for computing FFR from invasive angiography, without the need for passing a pressure wire or inducing hyperemia, thus removing the main barriers to uptake. Angiography‐derived FFR therefore has the potential to extend the benefits of physiological coronary lesion assessment to considerably more patients. Given the size of the interventional cardiology market, clinical and commercial motivation to deliver these tools as quickly as possible could hardly be greater. Several models are now approved as medical devices. Imminently, physicians and healthcare providers will have to decide whether to use these tools. But do they truly deliver physiology, and are they accurate enough? There are 3 particular areas of that deserve close scrutiny.