Literature DB >> 26896888

Impact of Right Atrial Pressure on Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements: Comparison of Fractional Flow Reserve and Myocardial Fractional Flow Reserve in 1,600 Coronary Stenoses.

Gabor G Toth1, Bernard De Bruyne2, Dan Rusinaru3, Giuseppe Di Gioia4, Jozef Bartunek2, Mariano Pellicano2, Marc Vanderheyden2, Julien Adjedj2, William Wijns2, Nico H J Pijls5, Emanuele Barbato6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the impact of a wide range of mean right atrial pressure (Pra) on fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements.
BACKGROUND: FFR invasively assesses the ischemic potential of coronary stenoses. FFR is calculated as the ratio of mean distal coronary pressure (Pd) to mean aortic pressure (Pa) during maximal hyperemia. The Pra is considered to have little impact if it is within normal range, so it is neglected in the formula.
METHODS: In 1,676 stenoses of 1,235 patients undergoing left-right heart catheterization for ischemic (642 [52%]) or valvular heart disease (593 [48%]), the authors compared the FFR values calculated without accounting for Pra (FFR= Pd/Pa) to the corresponding myocardial fractional flow reserve (FFRmyo) values accounting for Pra (FFRmyo = Pd - Pra/Pa - Pra).
RESULTS: The median Pra was 7 (interquartile range [IQR]: 5 to 10) mm Hg with a maximum of 27 mm Hg. The correlation and agreement between FFR and FFRmyo was excellent (R(2) = 0.987; slope 1.096 ± 0.003). The median FFR (0.85; IQR: 0.78 to 0.91) was slightly but statistically significantly higher than the median FFRmyo (0.83; IQR: 0.76 to 0.90; p < 0.001) with a median difference of 0.01 (IQR: 0.01 to 0.02). Values of FFR above the cutoff of 0.80 provided an FFRmyo ≤0.80 in 110 (9%) stenoses. No FFR value above 0.80 provided an FFRmyo ≤0.75.
CONCLUSIONS: The difference between FFR and FFRmyo was minimal even in patients with markedly increased Pra. FFR values above the gray zone (i.e., >0.80) did not yield values below the gray zone (i.e., ≤0.75) in any case, which suggests that the impact of right atrial pressure on FFR measurement is indeed negligible.
Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  fractional flow reserve; heart failure; myocardial fractional flow reserve; right atrial pressure

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26896888     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2015.11.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv        ISSN: 1936-8798            Impact factor:   11.195


  10 in total

1.  The FAME Trials: Impact on Clinical Decision Making.

Authors:  Guy R Heyndrickx; Gábor G Tóth
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2016-10

Review 2.  Fractional flow reserve to guide surgical coronary revascularization.

Authors:  Tara Shah; Joshua D Geleris; Ming Zhong; Rajesh V Swaminathan; Luke K Kim; Dmitriy N Feldman
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 3.  Clinical use of physiological lesion assessment using pressure guidewires: an expert consensus document of the Japanese association of cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics-update 2022.

Authors:  Yoshiaki Kawase; Hitoshi Matsuo; Shoichi Kuramitsu; Yasutsugu Shiono; Takashi Akasaka; Nobuhiro Tanaka; Tetsuya Amano; Ken Kozuma; Masato Nakamura; Hiroyoshi Yokoi; Yoshio Kobayashi; Yuji Ikari
Journal:  Cardiovasc Interv Ther       Date:  2022-05-11

Review 4.  The Role of Coronary Physiology in Contemporary Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.

Authors:  Federico Marin; Roberto Scarsini; Dimitrios Terentes-Printzios; Rafail A Kotronias; Flavio Ribichini; Adrian P Banning; Giovanni Luigi De Maria
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rev       Date:  2022

5.  Efficacy of intravenous nicorandil for fractional flow reserve assessment: study protocol for a crossover randomised trial.

Authors:  Takeshi Nishi; Hideki Kitahara; Yoshihide Fujimoto; Takashi Nakayama; Kazumasa Sugimoto; Kengo Nagashima; Hideki Hanaoka; Yoshio Kobayashi
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-11-21       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 6.  Fractional flow reserve: a clinical perspective.

Authors:  David Corcoran; Barry Hennigan; Colin Berry
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2017-06-02       Impact factor: 2.357

Review 7.  Assessing Coronary Blood Flow Physiology in the Cardiac Catheterisation Laboratory.

Authors:  Sethumadhavan Vijayan; David S Barmby; Ian R Pearson; Andrew G Davies; Stephen B Wheatcroft; Mohan Sivananthan
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rev       Date:  2017

Review 8.  Comparison of coronary angiography and intracoronary imaging with fractional flow reserve for coronary artery disease evaluation: An anatomical-functional mismatch.

Authors:  Julien Adjedj; Nikolay Stoyanov; Olivier Muller
Journal:  Anatol J Cardiol       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 1.596

Review 9.  Fractional Flow Reserve: Patient Selection and Perspectives.

Authors:  Joyce Peper; Leonie M Becker; Jan-Peter van Kuijk; Tim Leiner; Martin J Swaans
Journal:  Vasc Health Risk Manag       Date:  2021-12-14

Review 10.  Physiology-Based Revascularization of Left Main Coronary Artery Disease.

Authors:  Peter Kayaert; Mathieu Coeman; Sofie Gevaert; Michel De Pauw; Steven Haine
Journal:  J Interv Cardiol       Date:  2021-02-10       Impact factor: 2.279

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.