Yuhei Kobayashi1, Nils P Johnson2, Colin Berry3, Bernard De Bruyne4, K Lance Gould2, Allen Jeremias5, Keith G Oldroyd6, Nico H J Pijls7, William F Fearon8. 1. Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California; Stanford Cardiovascular Institute, Stanford, California. 2. University of Texas Medical School and Memorial Hermann Hospital, Houston, Texas. 3. West of Scotland Heart and Lung Center, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Clydebank, Scotland; British Heart Foundation Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Center, Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland. 4. Cardiovascular Center Aalst, Aalst, Belgium. 5. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stony Brook University Medical Center, Stony Brook, New York; Cardiovascular Research Foundation (CFR), New York, New York. 6. West of Scotland Heart and Lung Center, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Clydebank, Scotland. 7. Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands; Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands. 8. Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California; Stanford Cardiovascular Institute, Stanford, California. Electronic address: wfearon@stanford.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This work compares the diagnostic performance of adenosine-free coronary pressure wire indices based on lesion location. BACKGROUND: Several adenosine-free coronary pressure wire indices have been proposed to assess the functional significance of coronary artery lesions; however, there is a theoretical concern that lesion location and the mass of perfused myocardium may affect diagnostic performance. METHODS: A total of 763 patients were prospectively enrolled from 12 institutions. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and contrast-based FFR (cFFR) were obtained during adenosine-induced maximal hyperemia and contrast-induced submaximal hyperemia respectively, whereas the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and distal pressure/aortic pressure (Pd/Pa) were obtained at rest. Using an FFR of ≤0.80 as a reference standard, the diagnostic accuracy of each index was compared based on lesion location (left main or proximal left anterior descending artery [LM/pLAD] compared with other lesion locations). RESULTS: The median FFR, cFFR, iFR, and Pd/Pa were 0.81 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.74 to 0.87), 0.86 (IQR: 0.79 to 0.91), 0.90 (IQR: 0.85 to 0.94), and 0.92 (IQR: 0.88 to 0.95), respectively. The cFFR, iFR, and Pd/Pa were less accurate in LM/pLAD compared with other lesion locations (cFFR: 80.3% vs. 87.8%; iFR: 73.3% vs. 81.8%; Pd/Pa: 71.4% vs. 81.1%, respectively). By receiver-operating characteristics curve analysis, cFFR provided better diagnostic accuracy than resting indices regardless of lesion location (p ≤0.0001 vs. iFR and Pd/Pa for both groups). CONCLUSIONS: The cFFR, iFR, and Pd/Pa are less accurate in LM/pLAD compared with other lesion locations, likely related to the larger amount of myocardium supplied by LM/pLAD. Nevertheless, cFFR provides the best diagnostic accuracy among the adenosine-free indices, regardless of lesion location. Copyright Â
OBJECTIVES: This work compares the diagnostic performance of adenosine-free coronary pressure wire indices based on lesion location. BACKGROUND: Several adenosine-free coronary pressure wire indices have been proposed to assess the functional significance of coronary artery lesions; however, there is a theoretical concern that lesion location and the mass of perfused myocardium may affect diagnostic performance. METHODS: A total of 763 patients were prospectively enrolled from 12 institutions. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and contrast-based FFR (cFFR) were obtained during adenosine-induced maximal hyperemia and contrast-induced submaximal hyperemia respectively, whereas the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and distal pressure/aortic pressure (Pd/Pa) were obtained at rest. Using an FFR of ≤0.80 as a reference standard, the diagnostic accuracy of each index was compared based on lesion location (left main or proximal left anterior descending artery [LM/pLAD] compared with other lesion locations). RESULTS: The median FFR, cFFR, iFR, and Pd/Pa were 0.81 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.74 to 0.87), 0.86 (IQR: 0.79 to 0.91), 0.90 (IQR: 0.85 to 0.94), and 0.92 (IQR: 0.88 to 0.95), respectively. The cFFR, iFR, and Pd/Pa were less accurate in LM/pLAD compared with other lesion locations (cFFR: 80.3% vs. 87.8%; iFR: 73.3% vs. 81.8%; Pd/Pa: 71.4% vs. 81.1%, respectively). By receiver-operating characteristics curve analysis, cFFR provided better diagnostic accuracy than resting indices regardless of lesion location (p ≤0.0001 vs. iFR and Pd/Pa for both groups). CONCLUSIONS: The cFFR, iFR, and Pd/Pa are less accurate in LM/pLAD compared with other lesion locations, likely related to the larger amount of myocardium supplied by LM/pLAD. Nevertheless, cFFR provides the best diagnostic accuracy among the adenosine-free indices, regardless of lesion location. Copyright Â
Authors: Roberto Scarsini; Giovanni L De Maria; Giuseppe Di Gioia; Rafail A Kotronias; Cristina Aurigemma; Giuseppe Zimbardo; Francesco Burzotta; Antonio M Leone; Gabriele Pesarini; Carlo Trani; Filippo Crea; Rajesh K Kharbanda; Bernard De Bruyne; Emanuele Barbato; Adrian Banning; Flavio Ribichini Journal: J Cardiovasc Transl Res Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Tomas Kovarnik; Matsuo Hitoshi; Ales Kral; Stepan Jerabek; David Zemanek; Yoshiaki Kawase; Hiroyuki Omori; Toru Tanigaki; Jan Pudil; Alexandra Vodzinska; Marian Branny; Roman Stipal; Petr Kala; Jan Mrozek; Martin Porzer; Tomas Grezl; Kamil Novobilsky; Oscar Mendiz; Karel Kopriva; Martin Mates; Martin Chval; Zhi Chen; Pavel Martasek; Ales Linhart Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 6.106
Authors: Christopher M Cook; Allen Jeremias; Ricardo Petraco; Sayan Sen; Sukhjinder Nijjer; Matthew J Shun-Shin; Yousif Ahmad; Guus de Waard; Tim van de Hoef; Mauro Echavarria-Pinto; Martijn van Lavieren; Rasha Al Lamee; Yuetsu Kikuta; Yasutsugu Shiono; Ashesh Buch; Martijn Meuwissen; Ibrahim Danad; Paul Knaapen; Akiko Maehara; Bon-Kwon Koo; Gary S Mintz; Javier Escaned; Gregg W Stone; Darrel P Francis; Jamil Mayet; Jan J Piek; Niels van Royen; Justin E Davies Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2017-12-26 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Sayan Sen; Yousif Ahmad; Hakim-Moulay Dehbi; James P Howard; Juan F Iglesias; Rasha Al-Lamee; Ricardo Petraco; Sukhjinder Nijjer; Ravinay Bhindi; Sam Lehman; Darren Walters; James Sapontis; Luc Janssens; Christiaan J Vrints; Ahmed Khashaba; Mika Laine; Eric Van Belle; Florian Krackhardt; Waldemar Bojara; Olaf Going; Tobias Härle; Ciro Indolfi; Giampaolo Niccoli; Flavio Ribichini; Nobuhiro Tanaka; Hiroyoshi Yokoi; Hiroaki Takashima; Yuetsu Kikuta; Andrejs Erglis; Hugo Vinhas; Pedro Canas Silva; Sérgio B Baptista; Ali Alghamdi; Farrel Hellig; Bon-Kwon Koo; Chang-Wook Nam; Eun-Seok Shin; Joon-Hyung Doh; Salvatore Brugaletta; Eduardo Alegria-Barrero; Martijin Meuwissen; Jan J Piek; Niels van Royen; Murat Sezer; Carlo Di Mario; Robert T Gerber; Iqbal S Malik; Andrew S P Sharp; Suneel Talwar; Kare Tang; Habib Samady; John Altman; Arnold H Seto; Jasvindar Singh; Allen Jeremias; Hitoshi Matsuo; Rajesh K Kharbanda; Manesh R Patel; Patrick Serruys; Javier Escaned; Justin E Davies Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2019-02-05 Impact factor: 24.094