Literature DB >> 29268922

Comparison of Different Diastolic Resting Indexes to iFR: Are They All Equal?

Marcel Van't Veer1, Nico H J Pijls2, Barry Hennigan3, Stuart Watkins3, Ziad A Ali4, Bernard De Bruyne5, Frederik M Zimmermann6, Lokien X van Nunen6, Emanuele Barbato7, Colin Berry3, Keith G Oldroyd3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pressure measurement for the duration of the wave-free period (WFP) is considered essential for resting-state physiological assessment of coronary stenosis severity using the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR).
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare other diastolic resting indexes to iFR.
METHODS: In the population of the VERIFY2 (Pd/Pa vs iFR in an Unselected Population Referred for Invasive Angiography) study, iFR calculated by proprietary software (Volcano Harvest, Volcano Corporation, Rancho Cordova, California) was compared with the ratio of resting distal coronary pressure and aortic pressure during the complete duration of diastole (dPR), 25% to 75% of diastole (dPR25-75), and midpoint of diastole (dPRmid), along with Matlab calculated iFR (iFRmatlab) and iFR-like indexes shortening the length of the WFP by 50 and 100 ms (iFR-50ms and iFR-100ms), respectively. Mutual differences, Spearman correlations, area under the curve values from receiver-operating characteristic analyses, and diagnostic performance with respect to iFR and fractional flow reserve (FFR) were calculated for all indexes.
RESULTS: Median iFR in 197 patients with 257 vessels was 0.91 with an interquartile range of 0.87 to 0.95. The mutual differences (± SD) with iFR were 0.006 ± 0.011 (dPR), 0.001 ± 0.007 (dPR25-75), 0.001 ± 0.008 (dPRmid), 0.005 ± 0.009 (iFRmatlab), 0.003 ± 0.008 (iFR-50ms), and 0.001 ± 0.009 (iFR-100ms). Correlations for all indexes with iFR were >0.99 (p < 0.001 for all). Area under the curve values for predicting iFR were >0.99 for all indexes as well. Diagnostic accuracy compared with FFR was 76% to 77% for all indexes including iFR.
CONCLUSIONS: All diastolic resting indexes tested were identical to iFR, both numerically and with respect to their agreement with FFR. A numerically equal value to iFR can be determined without restriction to the WFP. Cutoff values, guidelines, and clinical recommendations for iFR can therefore be extended to these other indexes. (Pd/Pa vs iFR in an Unselected Population Referred for Invasive Angiography [VERIFY2]; NCT02377310).
Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  FFR; coronary physiology; coronary pressure measurements; iFR; resting indexes; wave-free period

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29268922     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.10.066

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  39 in total

Review 1.  Consensus document for invasive coronary physiologic assessment in Asia-Pacific countries.

Authors:  Hak Seung Lee; Joo Myung Lee; Chang-Wook Nam; Eun-Seok Shin; Joon-Hyung Doh; Neng Dai; Martin K C Ng; Andy S C Yong; Damras Tresukosol; Ajit S Mullasari; Rony Mathew; Praveen Chandra; Kuang-Te Wang; Yundai Chen; Jiyan Chen; Kai-Hang Yiu; Nils P Johnson; Bon-Kwon Koo
Journal:  Cardiol J       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 2.737

2.  Revisiting the Optimal Fractional Flow Reserve and Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Thresholds for Predicting the Physiological Significance of Coronary Artery Disease.

Authors:  Bhavik N Modi; Haseeb Rahman; Thomas Kaier; Matthew Ryan; Rupert Williams; Natalia Briceno; Howard Ellis; Antonis Pavlidis; Simon Redwood; Brian Clapp; Divaka Perera
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 6.546

3.  Diastolic pressure ratio: new approach and validation vs. the instantaneous wave-free ratio.

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

4.  The year in cardiology 2018: coronary interventions.

Authors:  Dariusz Dudek; Artur Dziewierz; Gregg Stone; William Wijns
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 29.983

Review 5.  Non-hyperaemic coronary pressure measurements to guide coronary interventions.

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

Review 6.  Physiological Assessment of Coronary Lesions in 2020.

Authors:  Mohsin Chowdhury; Eric A Osborn
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2020-01-15

7.  An EAPCI Expert Consensus Document on Ischaemia with Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries in Collaboration with European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Coronary Pathophysiology & Microcirculation Endorsed by Coronary Vasomotor Disorders International Study Group.

Authors:  Vijay Kunadian; Alaide Chieffo; Paolo G Camici; Colin Berry; Javier Escaned; Angela H E M Maas; Eva Prescott; Nicole Karam; Yolande Appelman; Chiara Fraccaro; Gill Louise Buchanan; Stephane Manzo-Silberman; Rasha Al-Lamee; Evelyn Regar; Alexandra Lansky; J Dawn Abbott; Lina Badimon; Dirk J Duncker; Roxana Mehran; Davide Capodanno; Andreas Baumbach
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 29.983

8.  Comparison of diagnostic performance between quantitative flow ratio, non-hyperemic pressure indices and fractional flow reserve.

Authors:  Ojas Hrakesh Mehta; Michael Hay; Ren Yik Lim; Abdul Rahman Ihdayhid; Michael Michail; Jun Michael Zhang; James D Cameron; Dennis T L Wong
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2020-06

Review 9.  Clinical use of physiological lesion assessment using pressure guidewires: an expert consensus document of the Japanese association of cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics-update 2022.

Authors:  Yoshiaki Kawase; Hitoshi Matsuo; Shoichi Kuramitsu; Yasutsugu Shiono; Takashi Akasaka; Nobuhiro Tanaka; Tetsuya Amano; Ken Kozuma; Masato Nakamura; Hiroyoshi Yokoi; Yoshio Kobayashi; Yuji Ikari
Journal:  Cardiovasc Interv Ther       Date:  2022-05-11

Review 10.  Alternative methods for functional assessment of intermediate coronary lesions.

Authors:  Martyna Zaleska; Łukasz Kołtowski; Jakub Maksym; Mariusz Tomaniak; Maksymilian Opolski; Janusz Kochman
Journal:  Cardiol J       Date:  2019-03-26       Impact factor: 2.737

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.