Doyeon Hwang1, Ki-Hyun Jeon2, Joo Myung Lee3, Jonghanne Park1, Chee Hae Kim1, Yaliang Tong4, Jinlong Zhang1, Ji-In Bang5, Minseok Suh5, Jin Chul Paeng5, Sang-Hoon Na6, Gi Jeong Cheon5, Christopher M Cook7, Justin E Davies7, Bon-Kwon Koo8. 1. Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Sejong General Hospital, Bucheon, Korea. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Heart Vascular Stroke Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. 4. China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, China. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 6. Department of Internal Medicine and Emergency Medical Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea; Institute of Aging, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. 7. International Centre for Circulatory Health, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London and Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service Trust, London, United Kingdom. 8. Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea; Institute of Aging, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. Electronic address: bkkoo@snu.ac.kr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the diagnostic performance of fractional flow reserve (FFR), instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), and resting distal coronary artery pressure/aortic pressure (Pd/Pa) using 13N-ammonia positron emission tomography (PET). BACKGROUND: The diagnostic performance of invasive physiological indices was reported to be different according to the reference to define the presence of myocardial ischemia. METHODS: A total of 115 consecutive patients with left anterior descending artery stenosis who underwent both 13N-ammonia PET and invasive physiological measurement were included. Optimal cutoff values and diagnostic performance of FFR, iFR, and resting Pd/Pa were assessed using PET-derived coronary flow reserve (CFR) and relative flow reserve (RFR) as references. To compare discrimination and reclassification ability, each index was compared with integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) and category-free net reclassification index (NRI). RESULTS: All invasive physiological indices correlated with CFR and RFR (all p values <0.001). The overall diagnostic accuracies of FFR, iFR, and resting Pd/Pa were not different for CFR <2.0 (FFR 69.6%, iFR 73.9%, and resting Pd/Pa 70.4%) and RFR <0.75 (FFR 73.9%, iFR 71.3%, and resting Pd/Pa 74.8%). Discrimination and reclassification abilities of invasive physiological indices were comparable for CFR. For RFR, FFR showed better discrimination and reclassification ability than resting indices (IDI = 0.170 and category-free NRI = 0.971 for iFR; IDI = 0.183 and category-free NRI = 1.058 for resting Pd/Pa; all p values <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic performance of invasive physiological indices showed no differences in the prediction of myocardial ischemia defined by CFR. Using RFR as a reference, FFR showed a better discrimination and reclassification ability than resting indices.
OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the diagnostic performance of fractional flow reserve (FFR), instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), and resting distal coronary artery pressure/aortic pressure (Pd/Pa) using 13N-ammonia positron emission tomography (PET). BACKGROUND: The diagnostic performance of invasive physiological indices was reported to be different according to the reference to define the presence of myocardial ischemia. METHODS: A total of 115 consecutive patients with left anterior descending artery stenosis who underwent both 13N-ammonia PET and invasive physiological measurement were included. Optimal cutoff values and diagnostic performance of FFR, iFR, and resting Pd/Pa were assessed using PET-derived coronary flow reserve (CFR) and relative flow reserve (RFR) as references. To compare discrimination and reclassification ability, each index was compared with integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) and category-free net reclassification index (NRI). RESULTS: All invasive physiological indices correlated with CFR and RFR (all p values <0.001). The overall diagnostic accuracies of FFR, iFR, and resting Pd/Pa were not different for CFR <2.0 (FFR 69.6%, iFR 73.9%, and resting Pd/Pa 70.4%) and RFR <0.75 (FFR 73.9%, iFR 71.3%, and resting Pd/Pa 74.8%). Discrimination and reclassification abilities of invasive physiological indices were comparable for CFR. For RFR, FFR showed better discrimination and reclassification ability than resting indices (IDI = 0.170 and category-free NRI = 0.971 for iFR; IDI = 0.183 and category-free NRI = 1.058 for resting Pd/Pa; all p values <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic performance of invasive physiological indices showed no differences in the prediction of myocardial ischemia defined by CFR. Using RFR as a reference, FFR showed a better discrimination and reclassification ability than resting indices.
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: Venkatesh L Murthy; Timothy M Bateman; Rob S Beanlands; Daniel S Berman; Salvador Borges-Neto; Panithaya Chareonthaitawee; Manuel D Cerqueira; Robert A deKemp; E Gordon DePuey; Vasken Dilsizian; Sharmila Dorbala; Edward P Ficaro; Ernest V Garcia; Henry Gewirtz; Gary V Heller; Howard C Lewin; Saurabh Malhotra; April Mann; Terrence D Ruddy; Thomas H Schindler; Ronald G Schwartz; Piotr J Slomka; Prem Soman; Marcelo F Di Carli; Andrew Einstein; Raymond Russell; James R Corbett Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Tim P van de Hoef; Joo Myung Lee; Mauro Echavarria-Pinto; Bon-Kwon Koo; Hitoshi Matsuo; Manesh R Patel; Justin E Davies; Javier Escaned; Jan J Piek Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2020-05-14 Impact factor: 32.419
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: Jonathon A Nye; Marina Piccinelli; Doyeon Hwang; Charles David Cooke; Jin Chul Paeng; Joo Myung Lee; Sang-Geon Cho; Russell Folks; Hee-Seung Bom; Bon-Kwon Koo; Ernest V Garcia Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-07-20 Impact factor: 4.506