Influence of contrast media dose and osmolality on the diagnostic performance of contrast fractional flow reserve

Background—Contrast fractional flow reserve (cFFR) is a method for assessing functional significance of coronary stenoses, which is more accurate than resting indices and does not require adenosine. However, contrast media volume and osmolality may affect the degree of hyperemia and therefore diagnostic performance. Methods and Results—cFFR, instantaneous wave–free ratio, distal pressure/aortic pressure at rest, and FFR were measured in 763 patients from 12 centers. We compared the diagnostic performance of cFFR between patients receiving low or iso-osmolality contrast (n=574 versus 189) and low or high contrast volume (n=341 versus 422) using FFR≤0.80 as a reference standard. The sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy of cFFR for the low versus iso-osmolality groups were 73%, 93%, and 85% versus 87%, 90%, and 89%, and for the low versus high contrast volume groups were 69%, 99%, and 83% versus 82%, 93%, and 88%. By receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis, cFFR provided better diagnostic performance than resting indices regardless of contrast osmolality and volume (P<0.001 for all groups). There was no significant difference between the area under the curve of cFFR in the low- and iso-osmolality groups (0.938 versus 0.957; P=0.40) and in the low- and high-volume groups (0.939 versus 0.949; P=0.61). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that neither contrast osmolality nor volume affected the overall accuracy of cFFR; however, both affected the sensitivity and specificity. Conclusions—The overall accuracy of cFFR is greater than instantaneous wave–free ratio and distal pressure/aortic pressure and not significantly affected by contrast volume and osmolality. However, contrast volume and osmolality do affect the sensitivity and specificity of cFFR

Functional SYNTAX Score for Risk Assessment in Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

ObjectivesThis study was aimed at investigating whether a fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided SYNTAX score (SS), termed “functional SYNTAX score” (FSS), would predict clinical outcome better than the classic SS in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).BackgroundThe SS is a purely anatomic score based on the coronary angiogram and predicts outcome after PCI in patients with multivessel CAD. FFR-guided PCI improves outcomes by adding functional information to the anatomic information obtained from the angiogram.MethodsThe SS was prospectively collected in 497 patients enrolled in the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study. FSS was determined by only counting ischemia-producing lesions (FFR ≤0.80). The ability of each score to predict major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year was compared.ResultsThe 497 patients were divided into tertiles of risk based on the SS. After determining the FSS for each patient, 32% moved to a lower-risk group as follows. MACE occurred in 9.0%, 11.3%, and 26.7% of patients in the low-, medium-, and high-FSS groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Only FSS and procedure time were independent predictors of 1-year MACE. FSS demonstrated a better predictive accuracy for MACE compared with SS (Harrell's C of FSS, 0.677 vs. SS, 0.630, p = 0.02; integrated discrimination improvement of 1.94%, p < 0.001).ConclusionsRecalculating SS by only incorporating ischemia-producing lesions as determined by FFR decreases the number of higher-risk patients and better discriminates risk for adverse events in patients with multivessel CAD undergoing PCI. (Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation [FAME]; NCT00267774

Comparison of different diastolic resting indexes to iFR: are they all equal?

Background: Pressure measurement for the duration of the wave-free period (WFP) is considered essential for resting-state physiological assessment of coronary stenosis severity using the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare other diastolic resting indexes to iFR. Methods: In the population of the VERIFY2 (Pd/Pa vs iFR in an Unselected Population Referred for Invasive Angiography) study, iFR calculated by proprietary software (Volcano Harvest, Volcano Corporation, Rancho Cordova, California) was compared with the ratio of resting distal coronary pressure and aortic pressure during the complete duration of diastole (dPR), 25% to 75% of diastole (dPR25–75), and midpoint of diastole (dPRmid), along with Matlab calculated iFR (iFRmatlab) and iFR-like indexes shortening the length of the WFP by 50 and 100 ms (iFR−50ms and iFR−100ms), respectively. Mutual differences, Spearman correlations, area under the curve values from receiver-operating characteristic analyses, and diagnostic performance with respect to iFR and fractional flow reserve (FFR) were calculated for all indexes. Results: Median iFR in 197 patients with 257 vessels was 0.91 with an interquartile range of 0.87 to 0.95. The mutual differences (± SD) with iFR were 0.006 ± 0.011 (dPR), 0.001 ± 0.007 (dPR25–75), 0.001 ± 0.008 (dPRmid), 0.005 ± 0.009 (iFRmatlab), 0.003 ± 0.008 (iFR−50ms), and 0.001 ± 0.009 (iFR−100ms). Correlations for all indexes with iFR were &gt;0.99 (p &lt; 0.001 for all). Area under the curve values for predicting iFR were &gt;0.99 for all indexes as well. Diagnostic accuracy compared with FFR was 76% to 77% for all indexes including iFR. Conclusions: All diastolic resting indexes tested were identical to iFR, both numerically and with respect to their agreement with FFR. A numerically equal value to iFR can be determined without restriction to the WFP. Cutoff values, guidelines, and clinical recommendations for iFR can therefore be extended to these other indexes. (Pd/Pa vs iFR in an Unselected Population Referred for Invasive Angiography [VERIFY2]; NCT02377310)

Continuum of vasodilator stress from rest to contrast medium to adenosine hyperemia for fractional flow reserve assessment

Objectives: This study compared the diagnostic performance with adenosine-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) ≤0.8 of contrast-based FFR (cFFR), resting distal pressure (Pd)/aortic pressure (Pa), and the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). Background: FFR objectively identifies lesions that benefit from medical therapy versus revascularization. However, FFR requires maximal vasodilation, usually achieved with adenosine. Radiographic contrast injection causes submaximal coronary hyperemia. Therefore, intracoronary contrast could provide an easy and inexpensive tool for predicting FFR. Methods: We recruited patients undergoing routine FFR assessment and made paired, repeated measurements of all physiology metrics (Pd/Pa, iFR, cFFR, and FFR). Contrast medium and dose were per local practice, as was the dose of intracoronary adenosine. Operators were encouraged to perform both intracoronary and intravenous adenosine assessments and a final drift check to assess wire calibration. A central core lab analyzed blinded pressure tracings in a standardized fashion. Results: A total of 763 subjects were enrolled from 12 international centers. Contrast volume was 8 ± 2 ml per measurement, and 8 different contrast media were used. Repeated measurements of each metric showed a bias &lt;0.005, but a lower SD (less variability) for cFFR than resting indexes. Although Pd/Pa and iFR demonstrated equivalent performance against FFR ≤0.8 (78.5% vs. 79.9% accuracy; p = 0.78; area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve: 0.875 vs. 0.881; p = 0.35), cFFR improved both metrics (85.8% accuracy and 0.930 area; p &lt; 0.001 for each) with an optimal binary threshold of 0.83. A hybrid decision-making strategy using cFFR required adenosine less often than when based on either Pd/Pa or iFR. Conclusions: cFFR provides diagnostic performance superior to that of Pd/Pa or iFR for predicting FFR. For clinical scenarios or health care systems in which adenosine is contraindicated or prohibitively expensive, cFFR offers a universal technique to simplify invasive coronary physiological assessments. Yet FFR remains the reference standard for diagnostic certainty as even cFFR reached only ∼85% agreement

Prognostic Implications of Fractional Flow Reserve After Coronary Stenting:A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is generally considered to reflect residual disease. Yet the clinical relevance of post-PCI FFR after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical relevance of post-PCI FFR measurement after DES implantation. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for relevant published articles from inception to June 18, 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Published articles that reported post-PCI FFR after DES implantation and its association with clinical outcomes were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Patient-level data were collected from the corresponding authors of 17 cohorts using a standardized spreadsheet. Meta-estimates for primary and secondary outcomes were analyzed per patient and using mixed-effects Cox proportional hazard regression with registry identifiers included as a random effect. All processes followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was target vessel failure (TVF) at 2 years, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). The secondary outcome was a composite of cardiac death or TVMI at 2 years. RESULTS: Of 2268 articles identified, 29 studies met selection criteria. Of these, 28 articles from 17 cohorts provided data, including a total of 5277 patients with 5869 vessels who underwent FFR measurement after DES implantation. Mean (SD) age was 64.4 (10.1) years and 4141 patients (78.5%) were men. Median (IQR) post-PCI FFR was 0.89 (0.84-0.94) and 690 vessels (11.8%) had a post-PCI FFR of 0.80 or below. The cumulative incidence of TVF was 340 patients (7.2%), with cardiac death or TVMI occurring in 111 patients (2.4%) at 2 years. Lower post-PCI FFR significantly increased the risk of TVF (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] per 0.01 FFR decrease, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05; P < .001). The risk of cardiac death or MI also increased inversely with post-PCI FFR (adjusted HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07, P = .049). These associations were consistent regardless of age, sex, the presence of hypertension or diabetes, and clinical diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Reduced FFR after DES implantation was common and associated with the risks of TVF and of cardiac death or TVMI. These results indicate the prognostic value of post-PCI physiologic assessment after DES implantation

Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide Coronary Revascularization

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has become an increasingly important index for decision making with respect to revascularization of coronary artery stenosis. It is the gold standard to indicate whether a particular stenosis is responsible for inducible ischemia and it is generally accepted that a stenosis with an ischemic value of FFR is responsible for angina pectoris and a worse outcome, and should be revascularized, whereas lesions with a non-ischemic FFR have a more favorable prognosis and can better be treated medically. In this review paper, the background, concept and clinical application of FFR are discussed from a practical point of view. On top of that, some in-depth considerations are given with respect to further possibilities of FFR for examining the coronary circulation, including separate assessment of coronary, myocardial, and collateral blood flows. Finally, a word of caution is given with respect to using resting pressure indexes, which seem attractive because they avoid the need for hyperemia, but negatively affect the accuracy of the measurements. This review can be read as an overview of the state-of-the-art of FFR and as a guide to further reading

The crux of maximum hyperemia: the last remaining barrier for routine use of fractional flow reserve

In the decision-making process of revascularization of coronary artery stenoses by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), the presence and extent of reversible ischemia associated with such particular stenoses is of paramount importance (1, 2, 3). A stenosis associated with reversible ischemia (also called functionally significant or hemodynamically significant stenosis) causes symptoms of angina pectoris and has a negative influence on outcome (1, 2). Therefore, the general feeling is that such lesions should be revascularized if technically feasible. On the contrary, functionally nonsignificant stenoses do not cause symptoms by definition and have an excellent outcome with medical therapy (3, 4, 5). Therefore, revascularization of such lesions is generally not indicated

Coronary pressure never lies

Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR), calculated by coronary pressure measurement, is the invasive gold standard to assess the hemodynamic significance of a coronary stenosis. FFR reliably indicates whether a stenosis is responsible for inducible ischemia and if percutaneous coronary intervention is appropriate. False positive or negative FFR is rare. Occasionally, however, a clinical or angiographic condition is encountered in which in first instance the FFR measurement contradicts the intuitive feeling of the interventionalist. Further examination in such cases, however, often reveals a clear physiologic explanation and in this manner FFR "lifts the veil". Two such patients are presented in this case report and the reasons for apparent or actual false positive or negative FFR are discussed