Sercan Okutucu1, Mehmet Cilingiroglu2,3, Marc D Feldman4. 1. Department of Cardiology, Memorial Ankara Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. 2. Department of Cardiology, University of Hawaii John Burns School of Medicine, Honolulu, HI, USA. cilingiroglumehmet@gmail.com. 3. University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. cilingiroglumehmet@gmail.com. 4. UTHSCSA, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a commonly used treatment option in coronary artery disease (CAD). Reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in those randomized to PCI compared to optimal medical therapy have been demonstrated only if it is performed for physiologically significant coronary lesions. Despite data demonstrating improved outcomes primarily in stable CAD and then acute settings, physiology-guided PCI remains underutilized. This review summarizes the evidence and commonly used methods for physiologic assessment of coronary stenosis. RECENT FINDINGS: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the gold standard for the analysis of lesion severity. Its use is limited by the need for adenosine, which adds time, complexity, and potential adverse effects. Non-hyperemic instantaneous wave-free ratio-guided revascularization and quantitative flow reserve ratio assessment both have shown safety and effectiveness with improved patient outcomes. Coronary physiological assessment solves the ambiguity of coronary angiography. Detecting physiologically significant stenoses is crucial to decide which lesion needs to be treated. Technological advances have led to the development of new assessment indices in addition to FFR.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a commonly used treatment option in coronary artery disease (CAD). Reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in those randomized to PCI compared to optimal medical therapy have been demonstrated only if it is performed for physiologically significant coronary lesions. Despite data demonstrating improved outcomes primarily in stable CAD and then acute settings, physiology-guided PCI remains underutilized. This review summarizes the evidence and commonly used methods for physiologic assessment of coronary stenosis. RECENT FINDINGS: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the gold standard for the analysis of lesion severity. Its use is limited by the need for adenosine, which adds time, complexity, and potential adverse effects. Non-hyperemic instantaneous wave-free ratio-guided revascularization and quantitative flow reserve ratio assessment both have shown safety and effectiveness with improved patient outcomes. Coronary physiological assessment solves the ambiguity of coronary angiography. Detecting physiologically significant stenoses is crucial to decide which lesion needs to be treated. Technological advances have led to the development of new assessment indices in addition to FFR.
Authors: G J Bech; B De Bruyne; N H Pijls; E D de Muinck; J C Hoorntje; J Escaned; P R Stella; E Boersma; J Bartunek; J J Koolen; W Wijns Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-06-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Frederik M Zimmermann; Angela Ferrara; Nils P Johnson; Lokien X van Nunen; Javier Escaned; Per Albertsson; Raimund Erbel; Victor Legrand; Hyeong-Cheol Gwon; Wouter S Remkes; Pieter R Stella; Pepijn van Schaardenburgh; G Jan Willem Bech; Bernard De Bruyne; Nico H J Pijls Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2015-09-23 Impact factor: 29.983
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: Bernard De Bruyne; Nico H J Pijls; Emanuele Barbato; Jozef Bartunek; Jan-Willem Bech; William Wijns; Guy R Heyndrickx Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-03-31 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: N H Pijls; B Van Gelder; P Van der Voort; K Peels; F A Bracke; H J Bonnier; M I el Gamal Journal: Circulation Date: 1995-12-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: John A Spertus; Philip G Jones; David J Maron; Sean M O'Brien; Harmony R Reynolds; Yves Rosenberg; Gregg W Stone; Frank E Harrell; William E Boden; William S Weintraub; Khaula Baloch; Kreton Mavromatis; Ariel Diaz; Gilbert Gosselin; Jonathan D Newman; Stavroula Mavromichalis; Karen P Alexander; David J Cohen; Sripal Bangalore; Judith S Hochman; Daniel B Mark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-03-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Leslee J Shaw; Daniel S Berman; David J Maron; G B John Mancini; Sean W Hayes; Pamela M Hartigan; William S Weintraub; Robert A O'Rourke; Marcin Dada; John A Spertus; Bernard R Chaitman; John Friedman; Piotr Slomka; Gary V Heller; Guido Germano; Gilbert Gosselin; Peter Berger; William J Kostuk; Ronald G Schwartz; Merill Knudtson; Emir Veledar; Eric R Bates; Benjamin McCallister; Koon K Teo; William E Boden Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-02-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Frederik M Zimmermann; Elmir Omerovic; Stephane Fournier; Henning Kelbæk; Nils P Johnson; Martina Rothenbühler; Panagiotis Xaplanteris; Mohamed Abdel-Wahab; Emanuele Barbato; Dan Eik Høfsten; Pim A L Tonino; Bianca M Boxma-de Klerk; William F Fearon; Lars Køber; Pieter C Smits; Bernard De Bruyne; Nico H J Pijls; Peter Jüni; Thomas Engstrøm Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 29.983