Literature DB >> 18176638

Long-term prognostic value of CFVR and FFR versus perfusion scintigraphy in patients with multivessel disease.

S A J Chamuleau1, B L F van Eck-Smit, M Meuwissen, K T Koch, M G W Dijkgraaf, H J Verberne, J G P Tijssen, J J Piek.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In this multicentre study, we investigated the long-term prognostic value of intracoronary derived haemodynamic parameters compared with the results of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS).
METHODS: Patients (n=191) who were referred for angioplasty of a severe lesion in the presence of an intermediate lesion in another coronary artery were included. MPS was performed to determine the presence of reversible perfusion defects in the area of the intermediate lesion. Coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR), and additionally fractional flow reserve (FFR; n=129), were determined distal to the intermediate lesion; CFVR >/=2.0 and FFR >/=0.75 were considered negative.
RESULTS: In total 67 events occurred in 49 patients (3 deaths, 9 MI, 9 CABG, 46 PTCA) during a mean of 793 days follow-up. Event-free survival was 63% for MPS, 79% for CFVR, and 79% for FFR if a negative test result was obtained. The relative risk was 1.2 (not significant) for MPS, 2.2 (p=0.001) for CFVR, and 2.4 (p=0.004) for FFR.
CONCLUSION: Selective evaluation of an intermediate lesion using CFVR or FFR allows more adequate risk stratification in patients with multivessel disease than MPS. A CFVR <2.0 or a FFR <0.75 was associated with a significant increase of the occurrence of cardiac events during long-term follow-up, predominantly associated with revascularisation. (Neth Heart J 2007;15:369-74.).

Entities:  

Keywords:  angioplasty; coronary artery disease; coronary flow velocity reserve; fractional flow reserve; myocardial perfusion scintigraphy; risk stratification

Year:  2007        PMID: 18176638      PMCID: PMC2082087          DOI: 10.1007/BF03086017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neth Heart J        ISSN: 1568-5888            Impact factor:   2.380


  19 in total

1.  Functional assessment of coronary artery stenosis by doppler derived absolute and relative coronary blood flow velocity reserve in comparison with (99m)Tc MIBI SPECT.

Authors:  H J Verberne; J J Piek; R A van Liebergen; K T Koch; J M Schroeder-Tanka; E A van Royen
Journal:  Heart       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 5.994

2.  Fractional flow reserve to determine the appropriateness of angioplasty in moderate coronary stenosis: a randomized trial.

Authors:  G J Bech; B De Bruyne; N H Pijls; E D de Muinck; J C Hoorntje; J Escaned; P R Stella; E Boersma; J Bartunek; J J Koolen; W Wijns
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2001-06-19       Impact factor: 29.690

3.  Physiological assessment of coronary artery disease in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Committee on Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Catheterization, Council on Clinical Cardiology.

Authors:  Morton J Kern; Amir Lerman; Jan-Willen Bech; Bernard De Bruyne; Eric Eeckhout; William F Fearon; Stuart T Higano; Michael J Lim; Martijn Meuwissen; Jan J Piek; Nico H J Pijls; Maria Siebes; Jos A E Spaan
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2006-08-28       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  Long-term follow-up after deferral of coronary intervention based on myocardial fractional flow reserve measurement.

Authors:  Martin Mates; Vladimir Hrabos; Petr Hajek; Ondrej Rataj; Jan Vojacek
Journal:  Coron Artery Dis       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.439

Review 5.  Roles of nuclear cardiology, cardiac computed tomography, and cardiac magnetic resonance: Noninvasive risk stratification and a conceptual framework for the selection of noninvasive imaging tests in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Daniel S Berman; Rory Hachamovitch; Leslee J Shaw; John D Friedman; Sean W Hayes; Louise E J Thomson; David S Fieno; Guido Germano; Nathan D Wong; Xingping Kang; Alan Rozanski
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 10.057

6.  Procedure guideline for myocardial perfusion imaging. Society of Nuclear Medicine.

Authors:  H W Strauss; D D Miller; M D Wittry; M D Cerqueira; E V Garcia; A S Iskandrian; H R Schelbert; F J Wackers
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 10.057

7.  Long-term safety of intracoronary haemodynamic assessment for deferral of angioplasty in intermediate coronary stenoses: a 5-year follow-up.

Authors:  Jasper S Wijpkema; Pieter A Van der Vleuten; Gillian A J Jessurun; René A Tio
Journal:  Acta Cardiol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 1.718

8.  Long-term prognostic value of CFVR and FFR versus perfusion scintigraphy in patients with multivessel disease.

Authors:  S A J Chamuleau; B L F van Eck-Smit; M Meuwissen; K T Koch; M G W Dijkgraaf; H J Verberne; J G P Tijssen; J J Piek
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.380

9.  Cost-effectiveness of measuring fractional flow reserve to guide coronary interventions.

Authors:  William F Fearon; Alan C Yeung; David P Lee; Paul G Yock; Paul A Heidenreich
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 4.749

10.  Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of coronary-artery stenoses.

Authors:  N H Pijls; B De Bruyne; K Peels; P H Van Der Voort; H J Bonnier; J J Bartunek J Koolen; J J Koolen
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1996-06-27       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  11 in total

1.  The relationship between myocardial SPECT and fractional flow reserve: is it drifting apart?

Authors:  Michael Rees
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2009-12-24       Impact factor: 2.357

2.  Left ventricular mass assessment by CMR; how to define the optimal index.

Authors:  E E van der Wall; H M Siebelink; J J Bax
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2010-03-06       Impact factor: 2.357

3.  Increased accuracy in computed tomography coronary angiography; a new body surface area adapted protocol.

Authors:  E E van der Wall; J E van Velzen; F R de Graaf; M M Boogers; J D Schuijf; J J Bax
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2010-04-16       Impact factor: 2.357

4.  Cardiac resynchronization therapy; the importance of evaluating cardiac metabolism.

Authors:  E E van der Wall; M J Schalij; A van der Laarse; J J Bax
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2010-02-12       Impact factor: 2.357

5.  Long-term prognostic value of CFVR and FFR versus perfusion scintigraphy in patients with multivessel disease.

Authors:  S A J Chamuleau; B L F van Eck-Smit; M Meuwissen; K T Koch; M G W Dijkgraaf; H J Verberne; J G P Tijssen; J J Piek
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.380

6.  Evidence of scar tissue: contra-indication to cardiac resynchronization therapy?

Authors:  E E van der Wall; M J Schalij; H F Verwey; J J Bax
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2010-07-08       Impact factor: 2.357

7.  Gated myocardial SPECT imaging; true additional value in AMI?

Authors:  E E van der Wall; A J Scholte; J J Bax
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2010-06-08       Impact factor: 2.357

8.  Journal metrics for the Netherlands Heart Journal.

Authors:  E E van der Wall; M J de Boer; P A Doevendans; A A Wilde; F Zijlstra
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2011-03-03       Impact factor: 2.380

9.  CT perfusion angiography; beware of artifacts!

Authors:  E E van der Wall; J D Schuijf; J J Bax; J W Jukema; M J Schalij
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2009-12-24       Impact factor: 2.357

10.  Cardiac resynchronization therapy; evaluation by advanced imaging techniques.

Authors:  E E van der Wall; M J Schalij; J J Bax
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2009-12-29       Impact factor: 2.357

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.