Literature DB >> 29790478

Validation of a novel non-hyperaemic index of coronary artery stenosis severity: the Resting Full-cycle Ratio (VALIDATE RFR) study.

Johan Svanerud1, Jung-Min Ahn, Allen Jeremias, Marcel van 't Veer, Ankita Gore, Akiko Maehara, Aaron Crowley, Nico H J Pijls, Bernard De Bruyne, Nils P Johnson, Barry Hennigan, Stuart Watkins, Colin Berry, Keith G Oldroyd, Seung-Jung Park, Ziad A Ali.   

Abstract

AIMS: Randomised controlled trials have reported instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) to be non-inferior to fractional flow reserve (FFR) for major adverse cardiovascular events at one year; however, iFR is limited by sensitive landmarking of the pressure waveform, and the assumption that maximal flow and minimal resistance occur during a fixed period of diastole. We sought to validate the resting full-cycle ratio (RFR), a novel non-hyperaemic index of coronary stenosis severity based on unbiased identification of the lowest distal coronary pressure to aortic pressure ratio (Pd/Pa), independent of the ECG, landmark identification, and timing within the cardiac cycle. METHODS AND
RESULTS: VALIDATE-RFR was a retrospective study designed to derive and validate the RFR. The primary endpoint was the agreement between RFR and iFR. RFR was retrospectively determined in 651 waveforms in which iFR was measured using a proprietary Philips/Volcano wire. RFR was highly correlated to iFR (R2=0.99, p<0.001), with a mean bias of -0.002 (95% limits of agreement -0.023 to 0.020). The diagnostic performance of RFR versus iFR was diagnostic accuracy 97.4%, sensitivity 98.2%, specificity 96.9%, positive predictive value 94.5%, negative predictive value 99.0%, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.996, and diagnostically equivalent within 1% (mean difference -0.002; 95% CI: -0.009 to 0.006, p=0.03). The RFR was detected outside diastole in 12.2% (341/2,790) of all cardiac cycles and 32.4% (167/516) of cardiac cycles in the right coronary artery where the sensitivity of iFR compared to FFR was lowest (40.6%).
CONCLUSIONS: RFR is diagnostically equivalent to iFR but unbiased in its ability to detect the lowest Pd/Pa during the full cardiac cycle, potentially unmasking physiologically significant coronary stenoses that would be missed by assessment dedicated to specific segments of the cardiac cycle.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29790478     DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00342

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  EuroIntervention        ISSN: 1774-024X            Impact factor:   6.534


  41 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

Review 2.  Physiologic Assessment of Coronary Stenosis: Current Status and Future Directions.

Authors:  Sercan Okutucu; Mehmet Cilingiroglu; Marc D Feldman
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2021-06-03       Impact factor: 2.931

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.  Independent predictors of discordance between the resting full-cycle ratio and fractional flow reserve.

Authors:  Reiji Goto; Hiroaki Takashima; Hirofumi Ohashi; Hirohiko Ando; Akihiro Suzuki; Shinichiro Sakurai; Yusuke Nakano; Hiroaki Sawada; Masanobu Fujimoto; Yasushi Suzuki; Katsuhisa Waseda; Wataru Ohashi; Tetsuya Amano
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2021-01-05       Impact factor: 2.037

5.  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 6.  Assessment of coronary physiology - the evidence and implications.

Authors:  Noman Ali; Peysh A Patel; Christopher J Malkin
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 2.659

Review 7.  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 8.  [Coronary physiology in the catheter laboratory].

Authors:  Stefan Baumann; Waldemar Bojara; Heiner Post; Tanja Rudolph; Tim Schäufele; Peter Ong; Ralf Lehmann; Constantin von Zur Mühlen
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2020-01-14       Impact factor: 1.443

Review 9.  Physiological Assessment of Coronary Lesions in 2020.

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

Review 10.  Coronary Angiography With Pressure Wire and Fractional Flow Reserve.

Authors:  Luise Gaede; Helge Möllmann; Tanja Rudolph; Johannes Rieber; Florian Boenner; Monique Tröbs
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2019-03-22       Impact factor: 5.594

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.