Deferral of Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Reduced Ejection Fraction Based on Physiological Assessment: Impact on Long-Term Survival

Background Deferring revascularization in patients with nonsignificant stenoses based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) is associated with favorable clinical outcomes up to 15 years. Whether this holds true in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction is unclear. We aimed to investigate whether FFR provides adjunctive clinical benefit compared with coronary angiography in deferring revascularization of patients with intermediate coronary stenoses and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Methods and Results Consecutive patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (≤50%) undergoing coronary angiography between 2002 and 2010 were screened. We included patients with at least 1 intermediate coronary stenosis (diameter stenosis ≥40%) in whom revascularization was deferred based either on angiography plus FFR (FFR guided) or angiography alone (angiography guided). The primary end point was the cumulative incidence of all-cause death at 10 years. The secondary end point (incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events) was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, any revascularization, and stroke. A total of 840 patients were included (206 in the FFR-guided group and 634 in the angiography-guided group). Median follow-up was 7 years (interquartile range, 3.22-11.08 years). After 1:1 propensity-score matching, baseline characteristics between the 2 groups were similar. All-cause death was significantly lower in the FFR-guided group compared with the angiography-guided group (94 [45.6%] versus 119 [57.8%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.49-0.85]; P<0.01). The rate of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events was lower in the FFR-guided group (123 [59.7%] versus 139 [67.5%]; HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.59-0.95]; P=0.02). Conclusions In patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, deferring revascularization of intermediate coronary stenoses based on FFR is associated with a lower incidence of death and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events at 10 years

Saline-induced coronary hyperemia with continuous intracoronary thermodilution is mediated by intravascular hemolysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Absolute coronary flow can be measured by intracoronary continuous thermodilution of saline through a dedicated infusion catheter (RayFlow®). A saline infusion rate at 15-20 mL/min induces an immediate, steady-state, maximal microvascular vasodilation. The mechanism of this hyperemic response remains unclear. We aimed to test whether local hemolysis is a potential mechanism of saline-induced coronary hyperemia. METHODS: Twelve patients undergoing left and right catheterization were included. The left coronary artery and the coronary sinus were selectively cannulated. Absolute resting and hyperemic coronary flow were measured by continuous intracoronary thermodilution. Arterial and venous samples were collected from the coronary artery and the coronary sinus in five phases: baseline (BL); resting flow measurement (Rest, saline infusion at 10 mL/min); hyperemia (Hyperemia, saline infusion at 20 mL/min); post-hyperemia (Post-Hyperemia, 2 min after the cessation of saline infusion); and control phase (Control, during infusion of saline through the guide catheter at 30 mL/min). RESULTS: Hemolysis was visually detected only in the centrifugated venous blood samples collected during the Hyperemia phase. As compared to Rest, during Hyperemia both LDH (131.50 ± 21.89 U/dL [Rest] and 258.33 ± 57.40 U/dL [Hyperemia], p < 0.001) and plasma free hemoglobin (PFHb, 4.92 ± 3.82 mg/dL [Rest] and 108.42 ± 46.58 mg/dL [Hyperemia], p < 0.001) significantly increased in the coronary sinus. The percentage of hemolysis was significantly higher during the Hyperemia phase (0.04 ± 0.02% [Rest] vs 0.89 ± 0.34% [Hyperemia], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Saline-induced hyperemia through a dedicated intracoronary infusion catheter is associated with hemolysis. Vasodilatory compounds released locally, like ATP, are likely ultimately responsible for localized microvascular vasodilation

Saline-induced coronary hyperemia with continuous intracoronary thermodilution is mediated by intravascular hemolysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS Absolute coronary flow can be measured by intracoronary continuous thermodilution of saline through a dedicated infusion catheter (RayFlow®). A saline infusion rate at 15-20 mL/min induces an immediate, steady-state, maximal microvascular vasodilation. The mechanism of this hyperemic response remains unclear. We aimed to test whether local hemolysis is a potential mechanism of saline-induced coronary hyperemia. METHODS Twelve patients undergoing left and right catheterization were included. The left coronary artery and the coronary sinus were selectively cannulated. Absolute resting and hyperemic coronary flow were measured by continuous intracoronary thermodilution. Arterial and venous samples were collected from the coronary artery and the coronary sinus in five phases: baseline (BL); resting flow measurement (Rest, saline infusion at 10 mL/min); hyperemia (Hyperemia, saline infusion at 20 mL/min); post-hyperemia (Post-Hyperemia, 2 min after the cessation of saline infusion); and control phase (Control, during infusion of saline through the guide catheter at 30 mL/min). RESULTS Hemolysis was visually detected only in the centrifugated venous blood samples collected during the Hyperemia phase. As compared to Rest, during Hyperemia both LDH (131.50 ± 21.89 U/dL [Rest] and 258.33 ± 57.40 U/dL [Hyperemia], p < 0.001) and plasma free hemoglobin (PFHb, 4.92 ± 3.82 mg/dL [Rest] and 108.42 ± 46.58 mg/dL [Hyperemia], p < 0.001) significantly increased in the coronary sinus. The percentage of hemolysis was significantly higher during the Hyperemia phase (0.04 ± 0.02% [Rest] vs 0.89 ± 0.34% [Hyperemia], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Saline-induced hyperemia through a dedicated intracoronary infusion catheter is associated with hemolysis. Vasodilatory compounds released locally, like ATP, are likely ultimately responsible for localized microvascular vasodilation

Deferral of Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Reduced Ejection Fraction Based on Physiological Assessment: Impact on Long‐Term Survival

Background Deferring revascularization in patients with nonsignificant stenoses based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) is associated with favorable clinical outcomes up to 15 years. Whether this holds true in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction is unclear. We aimed to investigate whether FFR provides adjunctive clinical benefit compared with coronary angiography in deferring revascularization of patients with intermediate coronary stenoses and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Methods and Results Consecutive patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (≤50%) undergoing coronary angiography between 2002 and 2010 were screened. We included patients with at least 1 intermediate coronary stenosis (diameter stenosis ≥40%) in whom revascularization was deferred based either on angiography plus FFR (FFR guided) or angiography alone (angiography guided). The primary end point was the cumulative incidence of all‐cause death at 10 years. The secondary end point (incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events) was a composite of all‐cause death, myocardial infarction, any revascularization, and stroke. A total of 840 patients were included (206 in the FFR‐guided group and 634 in the angiography‐guided group). Median follow‐up was 7 years (interquartile range, 3.22–11.08 years). After 1:1 propensity‐score matching, baseline characteristics between the 2 groups were similar. All‐cause death was significantly lower in the FFR‐guided group compared with the angiography‐guided group (94 [45.6%] versus 119 [57.8%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.49–0.85]; P<0.01). The rate of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events was lower in the FFR‐guided group (123 [59.7%] versus 139 [67.5%]; HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.59–0.95]; P=0.02). Conclusions In patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, deferring revascularization of intermediate coronary stenoses based on FFR is associated with a lower incidence of death and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events at 10 years

Reproducibility of bolus versus continuous thermodilution for assessment of coronary microvascular function in patients with ANOCA

BACKGROUND A bolus thermodilution-derived index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) has emerged as the standard for assessing coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD). Continuous thermodilution has recently been introduced as a tool to quantify absolute coronary flow and microvascular resistance directly. Microvascular resistance reserve (MRR) derived from continuous thermodilution has been proposed as a novel metric of microvascular function, which is independent of epicardial stenoses and myocardial mass. AIMS We aimed to assess the reproducibility of bolus and continuous thermodilution in assessing coronary microvascular function. METHODS Patients with angina and non-obstructive coronary artery disease (ANOCA) at angiography were prospectively enrolled. Bolus and continuous intracoronary thermodilution measurements were obtained in duplicate in the left anterior descending artery (LAD). Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either bolus thermodilution first or continuous thermodilution first. RESULTS A total of 102 patients were enrolled. The mean fractional flow reserve (FFR) was 0.86±0.06. Coronary flow reserve (CFR) calculated with continuous thermodilution (CFR$_{cont}$) was significantly lower than bolus thermodilution-derived CFR (CFR$_{bolus}$; 2.63±0.65 vs 3.29±1.17; p<0.001). CFR$_{cont}$ showed a higher reproducibility than CFR$_{bolus}$ (variability: 12.7±10.4% continuous vs 31.26±24.85% bolus; p<0.001). MRR showed a higher reproducibility than IMR (variability 12.4±10.1% continuous vs 24.2±19.3% bolus; p<0.001). No correlation was found between MRR and IMR (r=0.1, 95% confidence interval: -0.09 to 0.29; p=0.305). CONCLUSIONS In the assessment of coronary microvascular function, continuous thermodilution demonstrated significantly less variability on repeated measurements than bolus thermodilution