Sung Gyun Ahn1, Jon Suh2, Olivia Y Hung3, Hee Su Lee3, Yasir H Bouchi3, Wenjie Zeng3, Rounak Gandhi3, Parham Eshtehardi3, Bill D Gogas3, Habib Samady4. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia; Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea. 2. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea; Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, SoonChunHyang University Bucheon Hospital, Bucheon, Korea. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: hsamady@emory.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the epicardial and microvascular substrates associated with discordances between fractional flow reserve (FFR) and coronary flow reserve (CFR) values. BACKGROUND: Discordances between FFR and CFR remain poorly characterized. METHODS: FFR, hyperemic stenosis resistance (HSR), and intravascular ultrasound were performed as indexes of epicardial function and CFR and hyperemic microvascular resistance (HMR) as measures of microvascular function in 94 patients with moderate coronary stenosis. Maximal plaque burden (PBmax), HSR, and HMR were calculated in 4 quadrants based on values of FFR ≤0.80 and CFR ≤2.0 as follows: concordant normal (preserved FFR and CFR), concordant abnormal (low FFR and CFR), discordant low FFR and preserved CFR, and discordant preserved FFR and low CFR. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients (68%) had concordant FFR and CFR findings, and 30 patients (32%) had discordant FFR and CFR. Compared with patients with preserved FFR and CFR, those with low FFR and CFR had higher PBmax (p = 0.003), higher HSR (p < 0.001), and similar HMR. Among patients with preserved FFR, those with reduced CFR had similar PBmax and HSR but a trend toward higher HMR (p = 0.058) compared with patients with preserved CFR. Among patients with reduced FFR, those with preserved CFR had lower PBmax (p = 0.004), a trend toward lower HSR (p = 0.065), and lower HMR (p = 0.03) compared with patients with reduced CFR. Furthermore, compared with patients with preserved FFR and low CFR, those with low FFR and preserved CFR had higher HSR (p = 0.022) but lower HMR (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate coronary stenosis, preserved FFR and low CFR is associated with increased microvascular resistance, while low FFR and preserved CFR has modest epicardial stenosis and preserved microvascular function.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the epicardial and microvascular substrates associated with discordances between fractional flow reserve (FFR) and coronary flow reserve (CFR) values. BACKGROUND: Discordances between FFR and CFR remain poorly characterized. METHODS: FFR, hyperemic stenosis resistance (HSR), and intravascular ultrasound were performed as indexes of epicardial function and CFR and hyperemic microvascular resistance (HMR) as measures of microvascular function in 94 patients with moderate coronary stenosis. Maximal plaque burden (PBmax), HSR, and HMR were calculated in 4 quadrants based on values of FFR ≤0.80 and CFR ≤2.0 as follows: concordant normal (preserved FFR and CFR), concordant abnormal (low FFR and CFR), discordant low FFR and preserved CFR, and discordant preserved FFR and low CFR. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients (68%) had concordant FFR and CFR findings, and 30 patients (32%) had discordant FFR and CFR. Compared with patients with preserved FFR and CFR, those with low FFR and CFR had higher PBmax (p = 0.003), higher HSR (p < 0.001), and similar HMR. Among patients with preserved FFR, those with reduced CFR had similar PBmax and HSR but a trend toward higher HMR (p = 0.058) compared with patients with preserved CFR. Among patients with reduced FFR, those with preserved CFR had lower PBmax (p = 0.004), a trend toward lower HSR (p = 0.065), and lower HMR (p = 0.03) compared with patients with reduced CFR. Furthermore, compared with patients with preserved FFR and low CFR, those with low FFR and preserved CFR had higher HSR (p = 0.022) but lower HMR (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate coronary stenosis, preserved FFR and low CFR is associated with increased microvascular resistance, while low FFR and preserved CFR has modest epicardial stenosis and preserved microvascular function.
Authors: Kristopher D Knott; Andreas Seraphim; Joao B Augusto; Hui Xue; Liza Chacko; Nay Aung; Steffen E Petersen; Jackie A Cooper; Charlotte Manisty; Anish N Bhuva; Tushar Kotecha; Christos V Bourantas; Rhodri H Davies; Louise A E Brown; Sven Plein; Marianna Fontana; Peter Kellman; James C Moon Journal: Circulation Date: 2020-02-14 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Krishna K Patel; John A Spertus; Paul S Chan; Brett W Sperry; Firas Al Badarin; Kevin F Kennedy; Randall C Thompson; James A Case; A Iain McGhie; Timothy M Bateman Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: John-Ross D Clarke; Randol Kennedy; Freddy Duarte Lau; Gilead I Lancaster; Stuart W Zarich Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-12-29 Impact factor: 4.241
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