Improving PCI Outcomes Using Postprocedural Physiology and Intravascular Imaging

Although clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are improving, the long-term risk for target vessel failure remains concerning. Although the application of intravascular imaging and physiological indexes significantly improves outcomes, their routine use in practice remains limited. Nevertheless, merely using these modalities is not enough, and to truly improve patient outcomes, optimal intravascular dimensions with minimal vascular injury should be targeted. When assessing post-PCI results using either type of physiological or imaging technology, a broad spectrum of stent- and vessel-related anomalies can be expected. As not all of these issues warrant treatment, a profound knowledge of what to expect and how to recognize and when to treat these intraluminal problems is needed. Additionally, promising new modalities such as angiography-derived coronary physiology and hybrid imaging catheters are becoming available. The authors provide an overview of the currently available tools and techniques to define suboptimal PCI and when to apply these technologies to improve outcomes

Diagnostic Accuracy of Coronary Angiography-Based Vessel Fractional Flow Reserve (vFFR) Virtual Stenting

3D coronary angiography-based vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) proved to be an accurate diagnostic alternative to invasively measured pressure wire based fractional flow reserve (FFR). The ability to compute post-PCI vFFR using pre-PCI vFFR virtual stent analysis is unknown. We aimed to assess the feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of pre-PCI vFFR virtual stenting analysis (residual vFFR) with post-PCI FFR as a reference. This is an observational, single-center retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients from the FFR-SEARCH registry. We blindly calculated residual vFFR from pre-PCI angiograms and compared them to invasive pressure-wire based post-PCI FFR. Inclusion criteria involved presentation with either stable or unstable angina or non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), ≥1 significant stenosis in one of the epicardial coronary arteries (percentage diameter stenosis of >70% by QCA or hemodynamically relevant stenosis with FFR ≤0.80) and pre procedural angiograms eligible for vFFR analysis. Exclusion criteria comprised patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), coronary bypass grafts, cardiogenic shock or severe hemodynamic instability. Eighty-one pre-PCI residual vFFR measurements were compared to post-PCI FFR and post-PCI vFFR measurements. Mean residual vFFR was 0.91 ± 0.06, mean post-PCI FFR 0.91 ± 0.06 and mean post-PCI vFFR was 0.92 ± 0.05. Residual vFFR showed a high linear correlation (r = 0.84) and good agreement (mean difference (95% confidence interval): 0.005 (−0.002–0.012)) with post-PCI FFR, as well as with post-PCI-vFFR (r = 0.77, mean difference −0.007 (−0.015–0.0003)). Residual vFFR showed good accuracy in the identification of lesions with post-PCI FFR < 0.90 (sensitivity 94%, specificity 71%, area under the curve (AUC) 0.93 (95% CI: 0.86–0.99), p < 0.001). Virtual stenting using vFFR provided an accurate estimation of post-PCI FFR and post-PCI vFFR. Further studies are needed to prospectively validate a vFFR-guided PCI strategy

Impact of Poststenting Fractional Flow Reserve on Long-Term Clinical Outcomes: The FFR-SEARCH Study

Background: Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided treatment has been demonstrated to improve percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) results. However, little is known on the long-term impact of low post-PCI FFR. Methods: This is a large prospective all comers study evaluating the impact of post-PCI FFR on clinical outcomes. All patients undergoing successful PCI were eligible for enrollment. FFR measurements were performed immediately after PCI when the operator considered the angiographic result acceptable and final. No further action was undertaken based on the post-PCI result. Suboptimal post-PCI FFR was defined as FFR<0.90. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events, a composite of cardiac death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization at 2-year follow-up. Secondary end points were target vessel revascularizations and stent thrombosis and the separate components of the primary end point. Results: A total of 1000 patients were enrolled. Post-PCI FFR was successfully measured in 1165 vessels from 959 patients. A poststenting FFR<0.90 was observed in 440 vessels (37.8%). A total of 399 patients had at least 1 vessel with FFR<0.90 post-PCI. At 2-year follow-up, a patient level analysis showed no association between post-PCI FFR and major adverse cardiac event (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08 [95% CI, 0.73-1.60], P=0.707), cardiac death (HR, 1.55 [95% CI, 0.72-3.36], P=0.261), any myocardial infarction (HR, 1.53 [95% CI, 0.78-3.02], P=0.217). A vessel level analysis showed a higher rate of target vessel revascularization (HR, 1.91 [95% CI, 1.06-3.44], P=0.030) and a tendency toward higher rate of stent thrombosis (HR, 2.89 [95% CI, 0.88-9.48], P=0.081) with final post-PCI FFR<0.90. Conclusions: Suboptimal post-PCI FFR has only a moderate impact on major adverse cardiac event but coronary arteries with a post-PCI FFR<0.90 have a higher rate of target vessel revascularization