Literature DB >> 30236358

Fractional Flow Reserve and Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio for Nonculprit Stenosis in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Ki Hong Choi1, Joo Myung Lee2, Hyun Kuk Kim3, Jihoon Kim1, Jonghanne Park4, Doyeon Hwang4, Tae-Min Rhee4, Taek Kyu Park1, Jeong Hoon Yang5, Young Bin Song1, Eun-Seok Shin6, Chang-Wook Nam7, Joon-Hyung Doh8, Joo-Yong Hahn1, Jin-Ho Choi1, Seung-Hyuk Choi1, Bon-Kwon Koo9, Hyeon-Cheol Gwon1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the changes of fractional flow reserve (FFR) or instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) with severity of epicardial coronary stenosis between nonculprit vessel of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD).
BACKGROUND: There has been debate regarding the reliability of FFR or iFR for nonculprit stenosis in the acute stage of AMI.
METHODS: A total of 100 AMI patients underwent comprehensive physiologic assessment including FFR, iFR, coronary flow reserve (CFR), and index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) for nonculprit vessel stenosis after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for culprit vessel. The changes in FFR and iFR for diameter stenosis (%DS) of nonculprit vessel stenosis were compared with FFR and iFR measured in 203 patients with SIHD.
RESULTS: From 40% to 80% stenosis, FFR and iFR measured in nonculprit vessel of AMI patient showed significant decrease with worsening stenosis severity (all p values < 0.001). Nonculprit vessels of AMI patients showed lower CFR than SIHD; however, IMR was not different between the nonculprit vessel of AMI and SIHD patients. FFR and iFR were not significantly different between the nonculprit vessel of AMI and SIHD patients in all %DS groups from 40% to 80% (all p values > 0.05). In addition, percent difference of FFR and iFR according to the increase in %DS was also not significantly different between nonculprit vessel of AMI or SIHD. There was no significant interaction between clinical presentation and the changes of FFR and iFR for worsening %DS (interaction p value = 0.698 and 0.257, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Changes in FFR and iFR for the nonculprit stenosis of AMI patients were not significantly different from those in SIHD patients. These data support the use of invasive physiological parameters to guide treatment of nonculprit stenoses in the acute stage of successfully revascularized AMI.
Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  acute myocardial infarction; coronary flow reserve; fractional flow reserve; index of microcirculatory resistance; instantaneous wave-free ratio

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30236358     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.06.045

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv        ISSN: 1936-8798            Impact factor:   11.195


  8 in total

1.  A clinical trial comparing complete revascularization at the time of primary percutaneous coronary intervention versus during the index hospital admission in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease and STEMI uncomplicated by cardiogenic shock.

Authors:  Mihnea Traian Nichita Brendea; Mircea I Popescu; Virgil Popa; Polojintef Corbu Dorina Carmen
Journal:  Anatol J Cardiol       Date:  2021-11       Impact factor: 1.596

2.  Feasibility and diagnostic reliability of quantitative flow ratio in the assessment of non-culprit lesions in acute coronary syndrome.

Authors:  Aslihan Erbay; Lisa Penzel; Youssef S Abdelwahed; Jens Klotsche; Anne-Sophie Schatz; Julia Steiner; Arash Haghikia; Ulf Landmesser; Barbara E Stähli; David M Leistner
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 2.357

Review 3.  Why, When and How Should Clinicians Use Physiology in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes?

Authors:  Roberto Scarsini; Dimitrios Terentes-Printzios; Giovanni Luigi De Maria; Flavio Ribichini; Adrian Banning
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2020-06-04

4.  Diagnostic Agreement of Quantitative Flow Ratio With Fractional Flow Reserve and Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio.

Authors:  Doyeon Hwang; Ki Hong Choi; Joo Myung Lee; Hernán Mejía-Rentería; Jihoon Kim; Jonghanne Park; Tae-Min Rhee; Ki-Hyun Jeon; Hyun-Jong Lee; Hyun Kuk Kim; Taek Kyu Park; Jeong Hoon Yang; Young Bin Song; Eun-Seok Shin; Chang-Wook Nam; Jae-Jin Kwak; Joon-Hyung Doh; Joo-Yong Hahn; Jin-Ho Choi; Seung-Hyuk Choi; Javier Escaned; Bon-Kwon Koo; Hyeon-Cheol Gwon
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2019-04-16       Impact factor: 5.501

Review 5.  Research Progress in the Pharmacological Activities, Toxicities, and Pharmacokinetics of Sophoridine and Its Derivatives.

Authors:  Qiong Tang; Yao Liu; Xi Peng; Baojun Wang; Fei Luan; Nan Zeng
Journal:  Drug Des Devel Ther       Date:  2022-01-18       Impact factor: 4.162

6.  Diagnostic performance of deep learning and computational fluid dynamics-based instantaneous wave-free ratio derived from computed tomography angiography.

Authors:  Jingyuan Zhang; Kun Xu; Yumeng Hu; Lin Yang; Xiaochang Leng; Hongfeng Jin; Yiming Tang; Xiaowei Liu; Chen Ye; Yitao Guo; Lei Wang; Jianjun Zhang; Yue Feng; Caiyun Mou; Lijiang Tang; Jianping Xiang; Changqing Du
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2022-02-05       Impact factor: 2.298

7.  Different Microcirculation Response Between Culprit and Non-Culprit Vessels in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome.

Authors:  Yoon-Sung Jo; Hyeyeon Moon; Kyungil Park
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2020-05-15       Impact factor: 5.501

Review 8.  Non-hyperaemic pressure ratios to guide percutaneous coronary intervention.

Authors:  Michael Michail; Udit Thakur; Ojas Mehta; John M Ramzy; Andrea Comella; Abdul Rahman Ihdayhid; James D Cameron; Stephen J Nicholls; Stephen P Hoole; Adam J Brown
Journal:  Open Heart       Date:  2020-10
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.