Nils P Johnson1, Allen Jeremias2, Frederik M Zimmermann3, Julien Adjedj4, Nils Witt5, Barry Hennigan6, Bon-Kwon Koo7, Akiko Maehara8, Mitsuaki Matsumura9, Emanuele Barbato10, Giovanni Esposito11, Bruno Trimarco11, Gilles Rioufol12, Seung-Jung Park13, Hyoung-Mo Yang14, Sérgio B Baptista15, George S Chrysant16, Antonio M Leone17, Colin Berry6, Bernard De Bruyne4, K Lance Gould18, Richard L Kirkeeide18, Keith G Oldroyd19, Nico H J Pijls20, William F Fearon21. 1. Weatherhead PET Center, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth and Memorial Hermann Hospital, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: Nils.Johnson@uth.tmc.edu. 2. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stony Brook University Medical Center, Stony Brook, New York; Cardiovascular Research Foundation (CRF), New York, New York. 3. Department of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands. 4. Cardiovascular Center, OLV Clinic, Aalst, Belgium. 5. Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Science and Education, Division of Cardiology, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden. 6. West of Scotland Heart and Lung Centre, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Clydebank, Scotland; British Heart Foundation Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland. 7. Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea. 8. Cardiovascular Research Foundation (CRF), New York, New York; Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York. 9. Cardiovascular Research Foundation (CRF), New York, New York. 10. Cardiovascular Center, OLV Clinic, Aalst, Belgium; Division of Cardiology, Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy. 11. Division of Cardiology, Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy. 12. Department of Interventional Cardiology, Hospices Civils de Lyon and CARMEN, INSERM 1060, Lyon, France. 13. Heart Institute, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea. 14. Stanford University Medical Center and the Palo Alto VA Health Care Systems, Stanford and Palo Alto, California; Department of Cardiology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, South Korea. 15. Fernando da Fonseca Hospital, Amadora, Portugal. 16. Department of Cardiology, INTEGRIS Baptist Medical Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 17. Institute of Cardiology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy. 18. Weatherhead PET Center, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth and Memorial Hermann Hospital, Houston, Texas. 19. West of Scotland Heart and Lung Centre, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Clydebank, Scotland. 20. Department of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands. 21. Stanford University Medical Center and the Palo Alto VA Health Care Systems, Stanford and Palo Alto, California.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study compared the diagnostic performance with adenosine-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) ≤0.8 of contrast-based FFR (cFFR), resting distal pressure (Pd)/aortic pressure (Pa), and the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). BACKGROUND: FFR objectively identifies lesions that benefit from medical therapy versus revascularization. However, FFR requires maximal vasodilation, usually achieved with adenosine. Radiographic contrast injection causes submaximal coronary hyperemia. Therefore, intracoronary contrast could provide an easy and inexpensive tool for predicting FFR. METHODS: We recruited patients undergoing routine FFR assessment and made paired, repeated measurements of all physiology metrics (Pd/Pa, iFR, cFFR, and FFR). Contrast medium and dose were per local practice, as was the dose of intracoronary adenosine. Operators were encouraged to perform both intracoronary and intravenous adenosine assessments and a final drift check to assess wire calibration. A central core lab analyzed blinded pressure tracings in a standardized fashion. RESULTS: A total of 763 subjects were enrolled from 12 international centers. Contrast volume was 8 ± 2 ml per measurement, and 8 different contrast media were used. Repeated measurements of each metric showed a bias <0.005, but a lower SD (less variability) for cFFR than resting indexes. Although Pd/Pa and iFR demonstrated equivalent performance against FFR ≤0.8 (78.5% vs. 79.9% accuracy; p = 0.78; area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve: 0.875 vs. 0.881; p = 0.35), cFFR improved both metrics (85.8% accuracy and 0.930 area; p < 0.001 for each) with an optimal binary threshold of 0.83. A hybrid decision-making strategy using cFFR required adenosine less often than when based on either Pd/Pa or iFR. CONCLUSIONS: cFFR provides diagnostic performance superior to that of Pd/Pa or iFR for predicting FFR. For clinical scenarios or health care systems in which adenosine is contraindicated or prohibitively expensive, cFFR offers a universal technique to simplify invasive coronary physiological assessments. Yet FFR remains the reference standard for diagnostic certainty as even cFFR reached only ∼85% agreement.
OBJECTIVES: This study compared the diagnostic performance with adenosine-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) ≤0.8 of contrast-based FFR (cFFR), resting distal pressure (Pd)/aortic pressure (Pa), and the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). BACKGROUND: FFR objectively identifies lesions that benefit from medical therapy versus revascularization. However, FFR requires maximal vasodilation, usually achieved with adenosine. Radiographic contrast injection causes submaximal coronary hyperemia. Therefore, intracoronary contrast could provide an easy and inexpensive tool for predicting FFR. METHODS: We recruited patients undergoing routine FFR assessment and made paired, repeated measurements of all physiology metrics (Pd/Pa, iFR, cFFR, and FFR). Contrast medium and dose were per local practice, as was the dose of intracoronary adenosine. Operators were encouraged to perform both intracoronary and intravenous adenosine assessments and a final drift check to assess wire calibration. A central core lab analyzed blinded pressure tracings in a standardized fashion. RESULTS: A total of 763 subjects were enrolled from 12 international centers. Contrast volume was 8 ± 2 ml per measurement, and 8 different contrast media were used. Repeated measurements of each metric showed a bias <0.005, but a lower SD (less variability) for cFFR than resting indexes. Although Pd/Pa and iFR demonstrated equivalent performance against FFR ≤0.8 (78.5% vs. 79.9% accuracy; p = 0.78; area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve: 0.875 vs. 0.881; p = 0.35), cFFR improved both metrics (85.8% accuracy and 0.930 area; p < 0.001 for each) with an optimal binary threshold of 0.83. A hybrid decision-making strategy using cFFR required adenosine less often than when based on either Pd/Pa or iFR. CONCLUSIONS: cFFR provides diagnostic performance superior to that of Pd/Pa or iFR for predicting FFR. For clinical scenarios or health care systems in which adenosine is contraindicated or prohibitively expensive, cFFR offers a universal technique to simplify invasive coronary physiological assessments. Yet FFR remains the reference standard for diagnostic certainty as even cFFR reached only ∼85% agreement.
Authors: Nils P Johnson; Wenguang Li; Xi Chen; Barry Hennigan; Stuart Watkins; Colin Berry; William F Fearon; Keith G Oldroyd Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Stefan Baumann; Waldemar Bojara; Heiner Post; Tanja Rudolph; Tim Schäufele; Peter Ong; Ralf Lehmann; Constantin von Zur Mühlen Journal: Herz Date: 2020-01-14 Impact factor: 1.443
Authors: Vincent Spagnoli; Fabien Picard; Victor-Xavier Tadros; Daniel Cournoyer; Serge Doucet; Jean François Tanguay; Gilbert Gosselin; Pierre de Guise; Richard Gallo Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2018-04
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