Mohamed A Effat1, Srikara Viswanath Peelukhana1, Rupak K Banerjee1. 1. Mohamed A Effat, Division of Cardiovascular Health and Diseases, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Veteran Affairs Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH 45221, United States.
Abstract
AIM: To combine pressure and flow parameter, pressure drop coefficient (CDP) will result in better clinical outcomes in comparison to the fractional flow reserve (FFR) group. METHODS: To test this hypothesis, a comparison was made between the FFR < 0.75 and CDP > 27.9 groups in this study, for the major adverse cardiac events [major adverse cardiac events (MACE): Primary outcome] and patients' quality of life (secondary outcome). Further, a comparison was also made between the survival curves for the FFR < 0.75 and CDP > 27.9 groups. Two-tailed χ (2) test proportions were performed for the comparison of primary and secondary outcomes. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to compare the survival curves of FFR < 0.75 and CDP > 27.9 groups (MedcalcV10.2, Mariakerke, Belgium). Results were considered statistically significant for P < 0.05. RESULTS: The primary outcomes (%MACE) in the FFR < 0.75 group (20%, 4 out of 20) was not statistically different (P = 0.24) from the %MACE occurring in CDP > 27.9 group (8.57%, 2 out of 35). Noteworthy is the reduction in the %MACE in the CDP > 27.9 group, in comparison to the FFR < 0.75 group. Further, the secondary outcomes were not statistically significant between the FFR < 0.75 and CDP > 27.9 groups. Survival analysis results suggest that the survival time for the CDP > 27.9 group (n = 35) is significantly higher (P = 0.048) in comparison to the survival time for the FFR < 0.75 group (n = 20). The results remained similar for a FFR = 0.80 cut-off. CONCLUSION: Based on the above, CDP could prove to be a better diagnostic end-point for clinical revascularization decision-making in the cardiac catheterization laboratories.
AIM: To combine pressure and flow parameter, pressure drop coefficient (CDP) will result in better clinical outcomes in comparison to the fractional flow reserve (FFR) group. METHODS: To test this hypothesis, a comparison was made between the FFR < 0.75 and CDP > 27.9 groups in this study, for the major adverse cardiac events [major adverse cardiac events (MACE): Primary outcome] and patients' quality of life (secondary outcome). Further, a comparison was also made between the survival curves for the FFR < 0.75 and CDP > 27.9 groups. Two-tailed χ (2) test proportions were performed for the comparison of primary and secondary outcomes. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to compare the survival curves of FFR < 0.75 and CDP > 27.9 groups (MedcalcV10.2, Mariakerke, Belgium). Results were considered statistically significant for P < 0.05. RESULTS: The primary outcomes (%MACE) in the FFR < 0.75 group (20%, 4 out of 20) was not statistically different (P = 0.24) from the %MACE occurring in CDP > 27.9 group (8.57%, 2 out of 35). Noteworthy is the reduction in the %MACE in the CDP > 27.9 group, in comparison to the FFR < 0.75 group. Further, the secondary outcomes were not statistically significant between the FFR < 0.75 and CDP > 27.9 groups. Survival analysis results suggest that the survival time for the CDP > 27.9 group (n = 35) is significantly higher (P = 0.048) in comparison to the survival time for the FFR < 0.75 group (n = 20). The results remained similar for a FFR = 0.80 cut-off. CONCLUSION: Based on the above, CDP could prove to be a better diagnostic end-point for clinical revascularization decision-making in the cardiac catheterization laboratories.
Entities:
Keywords:
Intermediate coronary stenosis; Interventional cardiology; Pressure drop coefficient
Authors: Nico H J Pijls; William F Fearon; Pim A L Tonino; Uwe Siebert; Fumiaki Ikeno; Bernhard Bornschein; Marcel van't Veer; Volker Klauss; Ganesh Manoharan; Thomas Engstrøm; Keith G Oldroyd; Peter N Ver Lee; Philip A MacCarthy; Bernard De Bruyne Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-05-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: S V Peelukhana; R K Banerjee; K K Kolli; M A Effat; T A Helmy; M A Leesar; E W Schneeberger; P Succop; W Gottliebson; A Irif Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2012-01-27 Impact factor: 4.733
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
Authors: Kranthi K Kolli; R K Banerjee; Srikara V Peelukhana; M A Effat; M A Leesar; Imran Arif; E W Schneeberger; Paul Succop; W M Gottliebson; Tarek A Helmy Journal: J Invasive Cardiol Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 2.022
Authors: Pim A L Tonino; William F Fearon; Bernard De Bruyne; Keith G Oldroyd; Massoud A Leesar; Peter N Ver Lee; Philip A Maccarthy; Marcel Van't Veer; Nico H J Pijls Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-06-22 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Kranthi K Kolli; Tim P van de Hoef; Mohamed A Effat; Rupak K Banerjee; Srikara V Peelukhana; Paul Succop; Massoud A Leesar; Arif Imran; Jan J Piek; Tarek A Helmy Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Tim P van de Hoef; Froukje Nolte; Peter Damman; Ronak Delewi; Matthijs Bax; Steven A J Chamuleau; Michiel Voskuil; Maria Siebes; Jan G P Tijssen; Jos A E Spaan; Jan J Piek; Martijn Meuwissen Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2012-07-10 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: Rupak K Banerjee; Abhijit Sinha Roy; Lloyd H Back; Martin R Back; Saeb F Khoury; Ronald W Millard Journal: J Biomech Date: 2006-03-10 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: Martijn Meuwissen; Maria Siebes; Steven A J Chamuleau; Berthe L F van Eck-Smit; Karel T Koch; Robbert J de Winter; Jan G P Tijssen; Jos A E Spaan; Jan J Piek Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-07-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Sigmund Silber; Per Albertsson; Francisco F Avilés; Paolo G Camici; Antonio Colombo; Christian Hamm; Erik Jørgensen; Jean Marco; Jan-Erik Nordrehaug; Witold Ruzyllo; Philip Urban; Gregg W Stone; William Wijns Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2005-03-15 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Rupak K Banerjee; Sruthi Ramadurai; Shreyash M Manegaonkar; Marepalli B Rao; Sathyaprabha Rakkimuthu; Mohamed A Effat Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 4.566