T Härle1, S Meyer2, W Bojara3, F Vahldiek2, A Elsässer2. 1. Klinik für Kardiologie, Klinikum Oldenburg, European Medical School Oldenburg-Groningen, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Rahel-Straus-Str. 10, 26133, Oldenburg, Germany. t.haerle@gmx.de. 2. Klinik für Kardiologie, Klinikum Oldenburg, European Medical School Oldenburg-Groningen, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Rahel-Straus-Str. 10, 26133, Oldenburg, Germany. 3. Medizinische Klinik II, Gemeinschaftsklinikum Koblenz-Mayen, Koblenz, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Intracoronary pressure measurements have improved assessment of angiographic intermediate coronary stenoses. Methodically, pressure equalization and actual measurements are frequently performed at different height levels, depending on the particular coronary territory analyzed. Considering a hypothetical influence of hydrostatic pressure and the supine position of the patient, differences in the results of intracoronary measurements between anterior and posterior vessels seem likely. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of intracoronary pressure measurements between anterior and posterior coronary territories. METHODS: Intracoronary pressure measurements of 214 coronary stenoses in 158 patients were analyzed. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) was measured in all stenosis and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) in 197 stenoses in 144 patients. RESULTS: Both FFR (0.79 vs. 0.87, p < 0.001) and iFR values (0.86 vs. 0.94, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in posterior compared to anterior coronary vessels. Patients with only anterior or posterior lesions did not differ regarding clinical or lesion characteristics, in particular coronary stenosis severity (62.5 vs. 61.6 %, p = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Results of intracoronary measurements were systematically higher in the posterior coronary vessels when compared with anterior vessels. This phenomenon was independent of coronary stenosis severity or any clinical characteristics in our study population.
INTRODUCTION: Intracoronary pressure measurements have improved assessment of angiographic intermediate coronary stenoses. Methodically, pressure equalization and actual measurements are frequently performed at different height levels, depending on the particular coronary territory analyzed. Considering a hypothetical influence of hydrostatic pressure and the supine position of the patient, differences in the results of intracoronary measurements between anterior and posterior vessels seem likely. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of intracoronary pressure measurements between anterior and posterior coronary territories. METHODS: Intracoronary pressure measurements of 214 coronary stenoses in 158 patients were analyzed. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) was measured in all stenosis and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) in 197 stenoses in 144 patients. RESULTS: Both FFR (0.79 vs. 0.87, p < 0.001) and iFR values (0.86 vs. 0.94, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in posterior compared to anterior coronary vessels. Patients with only anterior or posterior lesions did not differ regarding clinical or lesion characteristics, in particular coronary stenosis severity (62.5 vs. 61.6 %, p = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Results of intracoronary measurements were systematically higher in the posterior coronary vessels when compared with anterior vessels. This phenomenon was independent of coronary stenosis severity or any clinical characteristics in our study population.
Authors: Jamie Layland; Andrew M Wilson; Robert J Whitbourn; Andrew T Burns; Jithendra Somaratne; George Leitl; Andrew I Macisaac Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2012-04-02 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: William F Fearon; Bernhard Bornschein; Pim A L Tonino; Raffaella M Gothe; Bernard De Bruyne; Nico H J Pijls; Uwe Siebert Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-11-29 Impact factor: 29.690
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: Ricardo Petraco; Javier Escaned; Sayan Sen; Sukhjinder Nijjer; Kaleab N Asrress; Mauro Echavarria-Pinto; Tim Lockie; Muhammed Z Khawaja; Cecilia Cuevas; Nicolas Foin; Christopher Broyd; Rodney A Foale; Nearchos Hadjiloizou; Iqbal S Malik; Ghada W Mikhail; Amarjit Sethi; Raffi Kaprielian; Christopher S Baker; David Lefroy; Michael Bellamy; Mahmud Al-Bustami; Masood A Khan; Alun D Hughes; Darrel P Francis; Jamil Mayet; Carlo Di Mario; Simon Redwood; Justin E Davies Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2013-05-20 Impact factor: 6.534
Authors: Sayan Sen; Kaleab N Asrress; Sukhjinder Nijjer; Ricardo Petraco; Iqbal S Malik; Rodney A Foale; Ghada W Mikhail; Nicolas Foin; Christopher Broyd; Nearchos Hadjiloizou; Amarjit Sethi; Mahmud Al-Bustami; David Hackett; Masood A Khan; Muhammed Z Khawaja; Christopher S Baker; Michael Bellamy; Kim H Parker; Alun D Hughes; Darrel P Francis; Jamil Mayet; Carlo Di Mario; Javier Escaned; Simon Redwood; Justin E Davies Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-04-02 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Firas Al-Janabi; Grigoris Karamasis; Chritopher M Cook; Alamgir M Kabir; Rohan O Jagathesan; Nicholas M Robinson; Jeremy W Sayer; Rajesh K Aggarwal; Gerald J Clesham; Paul R Kelly; Reto A Gamma; Kare H Tang; Thomas R Keeble; John R Davies Journal: Cardiol J Date: 2019-03-26 Impact factor: 2.737
Authors: Tobias Härle; Mareike Luz; Sven Meyer; Felix Vahldiek; Pim van der Harst; Randy van Dijk; Daan Ties; Javier Escaned; Justin Davies; Albrecht Elsässer Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2017-11-02 Impact factor: 5.460