Hyperaemic and non-hyperaemic pressure indices of coronary stenosis severity in patients with chronic kidney disease

Background Evidence regarding the use of pressure indices for the assessment of coronary stenoses in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is scarce. Methods We assessed the relation between eGFR, FFR and resting Pd/Pa in 1147 consecutive patients (1316 vessels) included in the International Collaboration of Comprehensive Physiologic Assessment Study. We also compared FFR and Pd/Pa against a standardized cut-off of coronary flow reserve (CFR Results FFR increases as renal function worsens (beta −10.5, 95% CI −20.0 to −11.03, p=0.030), a relation that was not seen with resting Pd/Pa (beta −6.14, 95% CI −19.9 to 6.78, p=0.351). Both indices had similar diagnostic accuracies for the detection of a CFR CFR decreased linearly with deteriorating eGFR, and this was mainly driven by higher resting coronary flow in CKD patients (p=0.026), while hyperaemic coronary flow remained similar (p=0.403). IMR did not change significantly with eGFR (beta −0.02, 95% −0.09 to 0.05, p=0.557). The incidence of VOCO was higher in patients with CKD and FFR>0.80 when compared to non-CKD patients and FFR>0.80 (12.7% vs 6.90%, p=0.062). Prognosis was worse for those with CKD, negative FFR and CFR Conclusions The assessment of a given coronary stenosis in patients with CKD with either FFR or resting Pd/Pa is equivalent when compared to underlying coronary flow. In CKD, impaired CFR is caused by a state of increased resting flow. The assessment of CFR on top of standard pressure wire examination significantly improves prognostic stratification in CKD patients. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.