AIMS: The present analysis addresses the potential clinical and physiologic significance of discordance in severity of coronary artery disease between the angiogram and fractional flow reserve (FFR) in a large and unselected patient population. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between September 1999 and December 2011, FFR and percent diameter stenosis (DS) as assessed by quantitative coronary angiography were obtained in 2986 patients (n = 4086 coronary stenoses), in whom at least one stenosis was of intermediate angiographic severity. Fractional flow reserve correlated slightly but significantly with DS [-0.38 (95% CI: -0.41; -0.36); P < 0.001]. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of a ≥ 50% DS for predicting FFR ≤ 0.80 were 61% (95% CI: 59; 63), 67% (95% CI: 65; 69), and 0.64 (95% CI: 0.56; 0.72), respectively. In different anatomical settings, sensitivity and specificity showed marked variations between 35 to 74% and 58 to 76%, respectively, resulting in a discordance in 35% of all cases for these thresholds. For an angiographic threshold of 70% DS, the diagnostic performance by the Youden's index decreased from 0.28 to 0.11 for the overall population. CONCLUSION: The data confirm that one-third of a large patient population shows discordance between angiogram ≥ 50%DS and FFR ≤ 0.8 thresholds of stenosis severity. Left main stenoses are often underestimated by the classical 50% DS cut-off compared with FFR. This discordance offers physiologic insights for future trials. It is hypothesized that the discordance between angiography and FFR is related to technical limitations, such as imprecise luminal border detection by angiography, as well as to physiologic factors, such as variable minimal microvascular resistance. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: The present analysis addresses the potential clinical and physiologic significance of discordance in severity of coronary artery disease between the angiogram and fractional flow reserve (FFR) in a large and unselected patient population. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between September 1999 and December 2011, FFR and percent diameter stenosis (DS) as assessed by quantitative coronary angiography were obtained in 2986 patients (n = 4086 coronary stenoses), in whom at least one stenosis was of intermediate angiographic severity. Fractional flow reserve correlated slightly but significantly with DS [-0.38 (95% CI: -0.41; -0.36); P < 0.001]. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of a ≥ 50% DS for predicting FFR ≤ 0.80 were 61% (95% CI: 59; 63), 67% (95% CI: 65; 69), and 0.64 (95% CI: 0.56; 0.72), respectively. In different anatomical settings, sensitivity and specificity showed marked variations between 35 to 74% and 58 to 76%, respectively, resulting in a discordance in 35% of all cases for these thresholds. For an angiographic threshold of 70% DS, the diagnostic performance by the Youden's index decreased from 0.28 to 0.11 for the overall population. CONCLUSION: The data confirm that one-third of a large patient population shows discordance between angiogram ≥ 50%DS and FFR ≤ 0.8 thresholds of stenosis severity. Left main stenoses are often underestimated by the classical 50% DS cut-off compared with FFR. This discordance offers physiologic insights for future trials. It is hypothesized that the discordance between angiography and FFR is related to technical limitations, such as imprecise luminal border detection by angiography, as well as to physiologic factors, such as variable minimal microvascular resistance. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Hak Seung Lee; Joo Myung Lee; Chang-Wook Nam; Eun-Seok Shin; Joon-Hyung Doh; Neng Dai; Martin K C Ng; Andy S C Yong; Damras Tresukosol; Ajit S Mullasari; Rony Mathew; Praveen Chandra; Kuang-Te Wang; Yundai Chen; Jiyan Chen; Kai-Hang Yiu; Nils P Johnson; Bon-Kwon Koo Journal: Cardiol J Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 2.737
Authors: Venkatesh L Murthy; Timothy M Bateman; Rob S Beanlands; Daniel S Berman; Salvador Borges-Neto; Panithaya Chareonthaitawee; Manuel D Cerqueira; Robert A deKemp; E Gordon DePuey; Vasken Dilsizian; Sharmila Dorbala; Edward P Ficaro; Ernest V Garcia; Henry Gewirtz; Gary V Heller; Howard C Lewin; Saurabh Malhotra; April Mann; Terrence D Ruddy; Thomas H Schindler; Ronald G Schwartz; Piotr J Slomka; Prem Soman; Marcelo F Di Carli; Andrew Einstein; Raymond Russell; James R Corbett Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Gabor G Toth; Bernard De Bruyne; Petr Kala; Flavio L Ribichini; Filip Casselman; Ruben Ramos; Zsolt Piroth; Stephane Fournier; Carlos Van Mieghem; Martin Penicka; Martin Mates; Frank Van Praet; Ivan Degriek; Emanuele Barbato Journal: J Cardiovasc Transl Res Date: 2018-07-19 Impact factor: 4.132