Soohong Min1, Gwansuk Kang2, Dong-Guk Paeng1,3, Joon Hyouk Choi4. 1. Department of Ocean System Engineering, Jeju National University, Jeju, Korea. 2. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. 3. Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, School of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA. 4. Department of Cardiology, Jeju National University School of Medicine, Jeju National University Hospital, Jeju, Korea. valgom@naver.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) are the two most commonly used coronary indices of physiological stenosis severity based on pressure. To minimize the effect of wedge pressure (Pwedge), FFR is measured during hyperemia conditions, and iFR is calculated as the ratio of distal and aortic pressures (Pd/Pa) in the wave-free period. The goal of this study was to predict Pwedge using the backward wave (Pback) through wave separation analysis (WSA) and to reflect the effect of Pwedge on FFR and iFR to identify the relationship between the two indices. METHODS: An in vitro circulation system was constructed to calculate Pwedge. The measurements were performed in cases with stenosis percentages of 48, 71, and 88% and with hydrostatic pressures of 10 and 30 mmHg. Then, the correlation between Pback by WSA and Pwedge was calculated. In vivo coronary flow and pressure were simultaneously measured for 11 vessels in all patients. The FFR and iFR values were reconstructed as the ratios of forward wave at distal and proximal sites during hyperemia and at rest, respectively. RESULTS: Based on the in vitro results, the correlation between Pback and Pwedge was high (r = 0.990, p < 0.0001). In vivo results showed high correlations between FFR and reconstructed FFR (r = 0.992, p < 0.001) and between iFR and reconstructed iFR (r = 0.930, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Reconstructed FFR and iFR were in good agreement with conventional FFR and iFR. FFR and iFR can be expressed as the variation of trans-stenotic forward pressure, indicating that the two values are inferred from the same formula under different conditions.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) are the two most commonly used coronary indices of physiological stenosis severity based on pressure. To minimize the effect of wedge pressure (Pwedge), FFR is measured during hyperemia conditions, and iFR is calculated as the ratio of distal and aortic pressures (Pd/Pa) in the wave-free period. The goal of this study was to predict Pwedge using the backward wave (Pback) through wave separation analysis (WSA) and to reflect the effect of Pwedge on FFR and iFR to identify the relationship between the two indices. METHODS: An in vitro circulation system was constructed to calculate Pwedge. The measurements were performed in cases with stenosis percentages of 48, 71, and 88% and with hydrostatic pressures of 10 and 30 mmHg. Then, the correlation between Pback by WSA and Pwedge was calculated. In vivo coronary flow and pressure were simultaneously measured for 11 vessels in all patients. The FFR and iFR values were reconstructed as the ratios of forward wave at distal and proximal sites during hyperemia and at rest, respectively. RESULTS: Based on the in vitro results, the correlation between Pback and Pwedge was high (r = 0.990, p < 0.0001). In vivo results showed high correlations between FFR and reconstructed FFR (r = 0.992, p < 0.001) and between iFR and reconstructed iFR (r = 0.930, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Reconstructed FFR and iFR were in good agreement with conventional FFR and iFR. FFR and iFR can be expressed as the variation of trans-stenotic forward pressure, indicating that the two values are inferred from the same formula under different conditions.
Authors: Stephan D Fihn; James C Blankenship; Karen P Alexander; John A Bittl; John G Byrne; Barbara J Fletcher; Gregg C Fonarow; Richard A Lange; Glenn N Levine; Thomas M Maddox; Srihari S Naidu; E Magnus Ohman; Peter K Smith Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-07-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Justin E Davies; Zachary I Whinnett; Darrel P Francis; Charlotte H Manisty; Jazmin Aguado-Sierra; Keith Willson; Rodney A Foale; Iqbal S Malik; Alun D Hughes; Kim H Parker; Jamil Mayet Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-04-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Kranthi K Kolli; Sun-Joo Jang; Abdul Zahid; Alexandre Caprio; Seyedhamidreza Alaie; Amir Ali Amiri Moghadam; Patricia Xu; Robert Shepherd; Bobak Mosadegh; Simon Dunham Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-06-30