Lorena Casadonte1, Jan J Piek2, Ed VanBavel1, Jos A E Spaan1, Maria Siebes3. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: m.siebes@amc.uva.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Drift is a well-known issue affecting intracoronary pressure measurements. A small pressure offset at the end of the procedure is generally considered acceptable, while repeat assessment is advised for drift exceeding ±2 mmHg. This practice implies that drift assessed after wire pullback equals that at the time of stenosis appraisal, but this assumption has not been systematically investigated. Our aim was to compare intra-and post-procedural pressure sensor drift and assess benefits of correction for intra-procedural drift and its effect on diagnostic classification. METHODS: In 70 patients we compared intra- and post-procedural pressure drift for 120 hemodynamic tracings obtained at baseline and throughout the hyperemic response to intracoronary adenosine. Intra-procedural drift was derived from the intercept of the stenosis pressure gradient-velocity relationship. Diagnostic reclassification after correction for intra-procedural drift was assessed for the mean distal-to-aortic pressure ratio at baseline (Pd/Pa) and hyperemia (fractional flow reserve, FFR), and corresponding stenosis resistances. RESULTS: Post- and intra-procedural drift exceeding the tolerated threshold was observed in 73% and 64% of the hemodynamic tracings, respectively. Discordance in terms of acceptable drift level was present for 42% of the tracings, with avoidable repeat physiological assessment in 25% and unacceptable intra-procedural drift unrecognized at final drift check in 17% of the tracings. Correction for intra-procedural drift caused higher reclassification rates for baseline than hyperemic functional indices. CONCLUSIONS: Post-procedural pressure drift frequently does not match drift during physiological assessment. Tracing-specific correction for intra-procedural drift can potentially lower the risk of inadvertent diagnostic misclassification and prevent unnecessary repeats.
BACKGROUND: Drift is a well-known issue affecting intracoronary pressure measurements. A small pressure offset at the end of the procedure is generally considered acceptable, while repeat assessment is advised for drift exceeding ±2 mmHg. This practice implies that drift assessed after wire pullback equals that at the time of stenosis appraisal, but this assumption has not been systematically investigated. Our aim was to compare intra-and post-procedural pressure sensor drift and assess benefits of correction for intra-procedural drift and its effect on diagnostic classification. METHODS: In 70 patients we compared intra- and post-procedural pressure drift for 120 hemodynamic tracings obtained at baseline and throughout the hyperemic response to intracoronary adenosine. Intra-procedural drift was derived from the intercept of the stenosis pressure gradient-velocity relationship. Diagnostic reclassification after correction for intra-procedural drift was assessed for the mean distal-to-aortic pressure ratio at baseline (Pd/Pa) and hyperemia (fractional flow reserve, FFR), and corresponding stenosis resistances. RESULTS: Post- and intra-procedural drift exceeding the tolerated threshold was observed in 73% and 64% of the hemodynamic tracings, respectively. Discordance in terms of acceptable drift level was present for 42% of the tracings, with avoidable repeat physiological assessment in 25% and unacceptable intra-procedural drift unrecognized at final drift check in 17% of the tracings. Correction for intra-procedural drift caused higher reclassification rates for baseline than hyperemic functional indices. CONCLUSIONS: Post-procedural pressure drift frequently does not match drift during physiological assessment. Tracing-specific correction for intra-procedural drift can potentially lower the risk of inadvertent diagnostic misclassification and prevent unnecessary repeats.