A pressão coronária (às vezes) mente. . .

Comment on: Comparative analysis of fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio: Results of a five-year registry. [Rev Port Cardiol. 2018]info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

cFFR as an alternative to FFR: please do not contrast simplicity!

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Coronary microcirculation and peripheral endothelial function evaluation after acute ST elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty

N/

Arterial tonometry-derived subendocardial viability ratio in coronary artery disease patients: the jury is still out.

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

The Multi-center Evaluation of the Accuracy of the Contrast MEdium INduced Pd/Pa RaTiO in Predicting FFR (MEMENTO-FFR) Study.

AIMS: Adenosine administration is needed for the achievement of maximal hyperaemia fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment. The objective was to test the accuracy of Pd/Pa ratio registered during submaximal hyperaemia induced by non-ionic contrast medium (contrast FFR [cFFR]) in predicting FFR and comparing it to the performance of resting Pd/Pa in a collaborative registry of 926 patients enrolled in 10 hospitals from four European countries (Italy, Spain, France and Portugal). METHODS AND RESULTS: Resting Pd/Pa, cFFR and FFR were measured in 1,026 coronary stenoses functionally evaluated using commercially available pressure wires. cFFR was obtained after intracoronary injection of contrast medium, while FFR was measured after administration of adenosine. Resting Pd/Pa and cFFR were significantly higher than FFR (0.93±0.05 vs. 0.87±0.08 vs. 0.84±0.08, p<0.001). A strong correlation and a close agreement at Bland-Altman analysis between cFFR and FFR were observed (r=0.90, p<0.001 and 95% CI of disagreement: from -0.042 to 0.11). ROC curve analysis showed an excellent accuracy (89%) of the cFFR cut-off of ≤0.85 in predicting an FFR value ≤0.80 (AUC 0.95 [95% CI: 0.94-0.96]), significantly better than that observed using resting Pd/Pa (AUC: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.88-0.91; p<0.001). A cFFR/FFR hybrid approach showed a significantly lower number of lesions requiring adenosine than a resting Pd/Pa/FFR hybrid approach (22% vs. 44%, p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: cFFR is accurate in predicting the functional significance of coronary stenosis. This could allow limiting the use of adenosine to obtain FFR to a minority of stenoses with considerable savings of time and costs.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Use of the Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve in PCI

BACKGROUND: Coronary revascularization guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is associated with better patient outcomes after the procedure than revascularization guided by angiography alone. It is unknown whether the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), an alternative measure that does not require the administration of adenosine, will offer benefits similar to those of FFR. METHODS: We randomly assigned 2492 patients with coronary artery disease, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo either iFR-guided or FFR-guided coronary revascularization. The primary end point was the 1-year risk of major adverse cardiac events, which were a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. The trial was designed to show the noninferiority of iFR to FFR, with a margin of 3.4 percentage points for the difference in risk. RESULTS: At 1 year, the primary end point had occurred in 78 of 1148 patients (6.8%) in the iFR group and in 83 of 1182 patients (7.0%) in the FFR group (difference in risk, -0.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.3 to 1.8; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.33; P=0.78). The risk of each component of the primary end point and of death from cardiovascular or noncardiovascular causes did not differ significantly between the groups. The number of patients who had adverse procedural symptoms and clinical signs was significantly lower in the iFR group than in the FFR group (39 patients [3.1%] vs. 385 patients [30.8%], P<0.001), and the median procedural time was significantly shorter (40.5 minutes vs. 45.0 minutes, P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Coronary revascularization guided by iFR was noninferior to revascularization guided by FFR with respect to the risk of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year. The rate of adverse procedural signs and symptoms was lower and the procedural time was shorter with iFR than with FFR. (Funded by Philips Volcano; DEFINE-FLAIR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02053038 .)info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Fibrinólise na paragem cárdio-respiratória

A paragem cárdio-respiratória tem sido considerada uma contra-indicação para terapêutica fibrinolítica, pelo receio de eventuais complicações hemorrágicas. A maioria das paragens cardíacas, particularmente em ambiente extra- -hospitalar, é causada por trombose vascular, incluindo o enfarte agudo do miocárdio e a embolia pulmonar, situações em que a fibrinólise demonstrou ser eficaz. Existem, na verdade, múltiplos relatos e vários estudos sugerindo que a fibrinólise pode ser uma terapêutica eficaz e segura em doentes com paragem cardíaca de etiologia presumivelmente cardiovascular. A propósito de um caso clínico de paragem cárdio- -respiratória no contexto de embolia pulmonar, tratado com sucesso com um agente fibrinolítico, os autores apresentam uma revisão sobre este tema

Rastreio da Diabetes em Doentes com Doença Macrovascular Coronária: As Novas Guidelines Europeias são um Retrocesso?

BACKGROUND: The new European guidelines on diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular diseases propose that the FINnish Diabetes RIsk SCore should be used to evaluate the risk of diabetes mellitus and that diabetes mellitus screening in coronary artery disease patients should be based on fasting glucose and HbA1c. The 2 hour oral glucose tolerance test, recommended for all pts in the previous guidelines, is now only recommended for 'inconclusive' cases. We aimed to evaluate this new strategy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fasting glucose, HbA1c and glucose tolerance test (75 g, 2h) were prospectively evaluated in a consecutive group of pts with coronary artery disease. ADA criteria (both glucose tolerance test and HbA1c) were used to define diabetes mellitus and pre-diabetes mellitus. Diabetes mellitus risk was evaluated according to the FINnish Diabetes RIsk SCore. RESULTS: A total of 135 patients were included (mean age 62.3 +/- 13.1 years, 99 males). Glucose tolerance test and HbA1c together diagnosed 18 (13.3%) new cases of diabetes mellitus and 77 (57.0%) patients with pre-diabetes mellitus. Fasting glucose + HbA1c (guidelines strategy) identified 12/18 patients with diabetes mellitus (Sens 66.7%; negative predictive value 95.1%; Kappa 0.78; p < 0.0001) and 83/95 patients with glucose anomalies (pre- diabetes mellitus + diabetes mellitus) (Sens 87.4%; negative predictive value 76.9%). Performing glucose tolerance test in the 29 patients with an elevated FINnish Diabetes RIsk SCore would allow identifying 15/18 patients with diabetes mellitus (Sens 83.3%; negative predictive value 97.5%; Kappa 0.85; p < 0.0001) and 86/95 patients with glucose anomalies (Sens 90.5%; negative predictive value 81.6%). DISCUSSION: Although this strategy improved the screening accuracy, one in each six patients with diabetes mellitus would still remain undiagnosed, as compared to measuring HbA1c and performing an glucose tolerance test in all patients. CONCLUSION: Using the FINnish Diabetes RIsk SCore to select candidates to additional glucose tolerance test improves the accuracy for identifying diabetic patients, as compared with fasting glucose + HbA1c alone. However, 1/6 patients diabetes mellitus is still left undiagnosed with this strategy proposed by the current guidelines.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio