Literature DB >> 18288725

The prognostic value of combined intracoronary pressure and blood flow velocity measurements after deferral of percutaneous coronary intervention.

Martijn Meuwissen1, Steven A J Chamuleau, Maria Siebes, Robbert J de Winter, Karel T Koch, Lea M Dijksman, Anja J van den Berg, Jan G P Tijssen, Jos A E Spaan, Jan J Piek.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated deferral of PCI of intermediate coronary lesions (IL) using fractional (FFR) and coronary flow reserve (CFR) hyperemic stenosis resistance index (HSR) in patients with a negative or nondiagnostic and noninvasive stress tests.
BACKGROUND: Outcome after deferral of PCI of IL with discordant results between FFR and CFR is unknown.
METHODS: PCI was deferred in 186 IL (mean diameter stenosis: 52%). Patients were divided according to the results of FFR and CFR in group A; FFR >or= 0.75 and CFR >or= 2.0 (n = 129), group B; FFR >or= 0.75 and CFR 2.0 (n = 28), group C; FFR 0.75 and CFR >or= 2.0 (n = 23) and group D; FFR 0.75 and CFR 2.0 (n = 6). Patients were followed for one year to document major adverse cardiac events (MACE).
RESULTS: Nineteen MACEs (0 deaths, 4 myocardial infarctions, 1 CABG, and 14 PCIs) occurred during a follow up of 323 +/- 88 days. MACE rate was lowest (4.7%) when FFR, CFR, and HSR were normal. A higher MACE rate was observed when concordant abnormal (group D) or discordant results between FFR and CFR (group B and C) were compared to concordant normal values (group A, 33.3% vs. 19.7% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.008). Multivariate regression analysis showed a higher predictive power for HSR than for FFR and CFR.
CONCLUSIONS: Abnormal FFR or abnormal CFR was documented in 31% of intermediate coronary lesions. Deferral of PCI in this group was associated with a high MACE rate, which underscores the rationale of combined pressure and flow measurements providing a stenosis resistance index that is better suited for clinical decision making in these lesions. (c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18288725     DOI: 10.1002/ccd.21331

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv        ISSN: 1522-1946            Impact factor:   2.692


  18 in total

Review 1.  Coronary physiology assessment in the catheterization laboratory.

Authors:  Felipe Díez-Delhoyo; Enrique Gutiérrez-Ibañes; Gerard Loughlin; Ricardo Sanz-Ruiz; María Eugenia Vázquez-Álvarez; Fernando Sarnago-Cebada; Rocío Angulo-Llanos; Ana Casado-Plasencia; Jaime Elízaga; Francisco Fernández Avilés Diáz
Journal:  World J Cardiol       Date:  2015-09-26

Review 2.  Physiologic Assessment of Coronary Stenosis: Current Status and Future Directions.

Authors:  Sercan Okutucu; Mehmet Cilingiroglu; Marc D Feldman
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2021-06-03       Impact factor: 2.931

3.  Feasibility of dynamic stress 201Tl/rest 99mTc-tetrofosmin single photon emission computed tomography for quantification of myocardial perfusion reserve in patients with stable coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Sangwon Han; Young-Hak Kim; Jung-Min Ahn; Soo-Jin Kang; Jungsu S Oh; Eonwoo Shin; Changhwan Sung; Sun Young Chae; Seung-Jung Park; Gillan Grimberg; Gil Kovalski; Dae Hyuk Moon
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2018-06-02       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 4.  Intravascular imaging tools in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: comprehensive assessment of anatomy and physiology.

Authors:  Parham Eshtehardi; Jennifer Luke; Michael C McDaniel; Habib Samady
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Transl Res       Date:  2011-04-01       Impact factor: 4.132

Review 5.  Targeting the dominant mechanism of coronary microvascular dysfunction with intracoronary physiology tests.

Authors:  Hernán Mejía-Rentería; Nina van der Hoeven; Tim P van de Hoef; Julius Heemelaar; Nicola Ryan; Amir Lerman; Niels van Royen; Javier Escaned
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2017-05-13       Impact factor: 2.357

6.  Fractional Flow Reserve: Does a Cut-off Value add Value?

Authors:  Shah R Mohdnazri; Thomas R Keeble; Andrew Sp Sharp
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2016-05

Review 7.  Assessing the Haemodynamic Impact of Coronary Artery Stenoses: Intracoronary Flow Versus Pressure Measurements.

Authors:  Valérie E Stegehuis; Gilbert Wm Wijntjens; Tadashi Murai; Jan J Piek; Tim P van de Hoef
Journal:  Eur Cardiol       Date:  2018-08

8.  Effect of Sex Differences on Invasive Measures of Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction in Patients With Angina in the Absence of Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease.

Authors:  Yuhei Kobayashi; William F Fearon; Yasuhiro Honda; Shigemitsu Tanaka; Vedant Pargaonkar; Peter J Fitzgerald; David P Lee; Marcia Stefanick; Alan C Yeung; Jennifer A Tremmel
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 11.195

Review 9.  Cardiovascular disease management: the need for better diagnostics.

Authors:  John J Ricotta; Jose Pagan; Michalis Xenos; Yared Alemu; Shmuel Einav; Danny Bluestein
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2008-11-11       Impact factor: 2.602

10.  Assessment and pathophysiology of microvascular disease: recent progress and clinical implications.

Authors:  Stefano Masi; Damiano Rizzoni; Stefano Taddei; Robert Jay Widmer; Augusto C Montezano; Thomas F Lüscher; Ernesto L Schiffrin; Rhian M Touyz; Francesco Paneni; Amir Lerman; Gaetano A Lanza; Agostino Virdis
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2021-07-08       Impact factor: 29.983

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.