BACKGROUND: Vulnerable plaque features including lipidic plaque have been shown to affect fractional flow reserve (FFR). Given that formation and propagation of lipid plaque is accompanied by endothelial dysfunction which impairs vascular tone, the degree of lipidic burden may affect vasoreactivity during hyperemia, potentially leading to reduced FFR. Our aim is to elucidate the relationship of the extent of lipidic plaque burden with coronary physiological vasoreactivity measure. METHODS: We analyzed 89 subjects requeuing PCI due to angiographically intermediate coronary stenosis with FFR ≤0.80. Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) and intravascular ultrasound were used to evaluate lipid-core burden index (LCBI) and atheroma volume at both target lesion (maxLCBI4mm; maximum value of LCBI within any 4 mm segments) and entire target vessel (LCBIvessel: LCBI within entire vessel). In addition to FFR, delta-FFR was measured by difference of distal coronary artery pressure/aortic pressure (Pd/Pa) between baseline and hyperemic state. RESULTS: The averaged FFR and delta-FFR was 0.74 (0.69-0.77), and 0.17±0.05, respectively. On target lesion-based analysis, maxLCBI4mm was negatively correlated to FFR (ρ=-0.213, P=0.040), and it was positively correlated to delta-FFR (ρ=0.313, P=0.002). Furthermore, target vessel-based analysis demonstrated similar relationship of LCBIvessel with FFR (ρ=-0.302, P=0.003) and delta-FFR (ρ=0.369, P<0.001). Even after adjusting clinical characteristics and lesion/vessel features, delta-FFR (by 0.10 increase) was independently associated with maxLCBI4mm (β=57.2, P=0.027) and LCBIvessel (β=24.8, P=0.007) by mixed linear model analyses. CONCLUSIONS: A greater amount of lipidic plaque burden at not only "target lesion" alone but "entire target vessel" was associated with a greater delta-FFR. The accumulation of lipidic plaque materials at both local site and entire vessel may impair hyperemia-induced vasoreactivity, which causes a reduced FFR. 2021 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Vulnerable plaque features including lipidic plaque have been shown to affect fractional flow reserve (FFR). Given that formation and propagation of lipid plaque is accompanied by endothelial dysfunction which impairs vascular tone, the degree of lipidic burden may affect vasoreactivity during hyperemia, potentially leading to reduced FFR. Our aim is to elucidate the relationship of the extent of lipidic plaque burden with coronary physiological vasoreactivity measure. METHODS: We analyzed 89 subjects requeuing PCI due to angiographically intermediate coronary stenosis with FFR ≤0.80. Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) and intravascular ultrasound were used to evaluate lipid-core burden index (LCBI) and atheroma volume at both target lesion (maxLCBI4mm; maximum value of LCBI within any 4 mm segments) and entire target vessel (LCBIvessel: LCBI within entire vessel). In addition to FFR, delta-FFR was measured by difference of distal coronary artery pressure/aortic pressure (Pd/Pa) between baseline and hyperemic state. RESULTS: The averaged FFR and delta-FFR was 0.74 (0.69-0.77), and 0.17±0.05, respectively. On target lesion-based analysis, maxLCBI4mm was negatively correlated to FFR (ρ=-0.213, P=0.040), and it was positively correlated to delta-FFR (ρ=0.313, P=0.002). Furthermore, target vessel-based analysis demonstrated similar relationship of LCBIvessel with FFR (ρ=-0.302, P=0.003) and delta-FFR (ρ=0.369, P<0.001). Even after adjusting clinical characteristics and lesion/vessel features, delta-FFR (by 0.10 increase) was independently associated with maxLCBI4mm (β=57.2, P=0.027) and LCBIvessel (β=24.8, P=0.007) by mixed linear model analyses. CONCLUSIONS: A greater amount of lipidic plaque burden at not only "target lesion" alone but "entire target vessel" was associated with a greater delta-FFR. The accumulation of lipidic plaque materials at both local site and entire vessel may impair hyperemia-induced vasoreactivity, which causes a reduced FFR. 2021 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.
Authors: Rishi Puri; Stephen J Nicholls; Mingyuan Shao; Yu Kataoka; Kiyoko Uno; Samir R Kapadia; E Murat Tuzcu; Steven E Nissen Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-04-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Franz-Josef Neumann; Miguel Sousa-Uva; Anders Ahlsson; Fernando Alfonso; Adrian P Banning; Umberto Benedetto; Robert A Byrne; Jean-Philippe Collet; Volkmar Falk; Stuart J Head; Peter Jüni; Adnan Kastrati; Akos Koller; Steen D Kristensen; Josef Niebauer; Dimitrios J Richter; Petar M Seferovic; Dirk Sibbing; Giulio G Stefanini; Stephan Windecker; Rashmi Yadav; Michael O Zembala Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Joanna J Wykrzykowska; Gary S Mintz; Hector M Garcia-Garcia; Akiko Maehara; Martin Fahy; Ke Xu; Andres Inguez; Jean Fajadet; Alexandra Lansky; Barry Templin; Zhen Zhang; Bernard de Bruyne; Giora Weisz; Patrick W Serruys; Gregg W Stone Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-03
Authors: Ron Waksman; Carlo Di Mario; Rebecca Torguson; Ziad A Ali; Varinder Singh; William H Skinner; Andre K Artis; Tim Ten Cate; Eric Powers; Christopher Kim; Evelyn Regar; S Chiu Wong; Stephen Lewis; Joanna Wykrzykowska; Sandeep Dube; Samer Kazziha; Martin van der Ent; Priti Shah; Paige E Craig; Quan Zou; Paul Kolm; H Bryan Brewer; Hector M Garcia-Garcia Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-09-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Stephen J Nicholls; Rishi Puri; Todd Anderson; Christie M Ballantyne; Leslie Cho; John J P Kastelein; Wolfgang Koenig; Ransi Somaratne; Helina Kassahun; Jingyuan Yang; Scott M Wasserman; Robert Scott; Imre Ungi; Jakub Podolec; Antonius Oude Ophuis; Jan H Cornel; Marilyn Borgman; Danielle M Brennan; Steven E Nissen Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-12-13 Impact factor: 56.272