Guus A de Waard1, Ibrahim Danad1, Ricardo Petraco2, Roel S Driessen1, Pieter G Raijmakers3, Paul F Teunissen1, Peter M van de Ven4, Maarten A H van Leeuwen5, Alexander Nap1, Hendrik J Harms3, Adriaan A Lammertsma3, Justin E Davies2, Paul Knaapen1, Niels van Royen1,6. 1. Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. National Heart and Lung Institute, 2nd Floor B Block, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College London, UK. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Cardiology, Isala Heart Center, Dokter van Heesweg 2, AB Zwolle, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Cardiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
Aims: Guidelines recommend the use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide percutaneous coronary intervention. For this purpose, physiological lesion assessment without adenosine may have a similar diagnostic accuracy as FFR. We aimed to investigate the performances of FFR, resting instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), and resting Pd/Pa compared with [15O]H2O positron emission tomography (PET) perfusion imaging. Methods and results: [15O]H2O PET and intracoronary pressure measurements were evaluated in 320 coronary arteries (of which 136 coronary stenoses) in 129 stable patients. The primary analysis consisting of the area-under-the-receiver-operating-characteristic curve for impaired PET hyperaemic myocardial blood flow (MBF) <2.3 mL⋅min-1⋅g-1 in coronary stenoses was 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70-0.85] for FFR, 0.74 (95% CI: 0.66-0.81) for iFR, and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.67-0.82) for Pd/Pa. No significant differences between area-under-the-receiver-operating-characteristic curve were observed for any two indices compared. In a secondary analysis, the diagnostic accuracy compared with impaired PET hyperaemic MBF in coronary stenoses was 72% (95% CI: 64-79%, κ: 0.44) for FFR ≤0.80, 72% (95% CI: 64-80%, κ: 0.44) for iFR ≤0.89, and 70% (95% CI: 62-78%, κ: 0.40) for Pd/Pa ≤0.92. Other secondary analyses included a comparison of physiological indices with PET hyperaemic MBF in all vessels and all of the aforementioned analyses using PET myocardial perfusion reserve as comparator. Statistical testing for the secondary analyses showed results that were consistent with the results of the primary analysis. Conclusion: Fractional flow reserve, iFR, and Pd/Pa showed a similar performance when compared with PET imaging. Our results support the validity of invasive physiological lesion assessment under resting conditions by iFR or Pd/Pa. Trial registration: Sub-study of the PACIFIC trial with clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01521468.
Aims: Guidelines recommend the use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide percutaneous coronary intervention. For this purpose, physiological lesion assessment without adenosine may have a similar diagnostic accuracy as FFR. We aimed to investigate the performances of FFR, resting instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), and resting Pd/Pa compared with [15O]H2O positron emission tomography (PET) perfusion imaging. Methods and results: [15O]H2O PET and intracoronary pressure measurements were evaluated in 320 coronary arteries (of which 136 coronary stenoses) in 129 stable patients. The primary analysis consisting of the area-under-the-receiver-operating-characteristic curve for impaired PET hyperaemic myocardial blood flow (MBF) <2.3 mL⋅min-1⋅g-1 in coronary stenoses was 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70-0.85] for FFR, 0.74 (95% CI: 0.66-0.81) for iFR, and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.67-0.82) for Pd/Pa. No significant differences between area-under-the-receiver-operating-characteristic curve were observed for any two indices compared. In a secondary analysis, the diagnostic accuracy compared with impaired PET hyperaemic MBF in coronary stenoses was 72% (95% CI: 64-79%, κ: 0.44) for FFR ≤0.80, 72% (95% CI: 64-80%, κ: 0.44) for iFR ≤0.89, and 70% (95% CI: 62-78%, κ: 0.40) for Pd/Pa ≤0.92. Other secondary analyses included a comparison of physiological indices with PET hyperaemic MBF in all vessels and all of the aforementioned analyses using PET myocardial perfusion reserve as comparator. Statistical testing for the secondary analyses showed results that were consistent with the results of the primary analysis. Conclusion: Fractional flow reserve, iFR, and Pd/Pa showed a similar performance when compared with PET imaging. Our results support the validity of invasive physiological lesion assessment under resting conditions by iFR or Pd/Pa. Trial registration: Sub-study of the PACIFIC trial with clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01521468.
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
Authors: Ozan M Demir; Haseeb Rahman; Tim P van de Hoef; Javier Escaned; Jan J Piek; Sven Plein; Divaka Perera Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 29.983