Prognostic value of microvascular resistance and its association to fractional flow reserve:a DEFINE-FLOW substudy

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of hyperemic microvascular resistance (HMR) and its relationship with hyperemic stenosis resistance (HSR) index and fractional flow reserve (FFR) in stable coronary artery disease. METHODS: This is a substudy of the DEFINE-FLOW cohort (NCT02328820), which evaluated the prognosis of lesions (n=456) after combined FFR and coronary flow reserve (CFR) assessment in a prospective, non-blinded, non-randomised, multicentre study in 12 centres in Europe and Japan. Participants (n=430) were evaluated by wire-based measurement of coronary pressure, flow and vascular resistance (ComboWire XT, Phillips Volcano, San Diego, California, USA). RESULTS: Mean FFR and CFR were 0.82±0.10 and 2.2±0.6, respectively. When divided according to FFR and CFR thresholds (above and below 0.80 and 2.0, respectively), HMR was highest in lesions with FFR>0.80 and CFR<2.0 (n=99) compared with lesions with FFR≤0.80 and CFR≥2.0 (n=68) (2.92±1.2 vs 1.91±0.64 mm Hg/cm/s, p<0.001). The FFR value was proportional to the ratio between HMR and the HMR+HSR (total resistance), 95% limits of agreement (−0.032; 0.019), bias (−0.003±0.02) and correlation (r(2)=0.98, p<0.0001). Cox regression model using HMR as continuous parameter for target vessel failure showed an HR of 1.51, 95% CI (0.9 to 2.4), p=0.10. CONCLUSIONS: Increased HMR was not associated with a higher rate of adverse clinical events, in this population of mainly stable patients. FFR can be equally well expressed as HMR/HMR+HSR, thereby providing an alternative conceptual formulation linking epicardial severity with microvascular resistance. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02328820

Fractional Flow Reserve/ Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Discordance in Angiographically Intermediate Coronary Stenoses: An Analysis Using Doppler-Derived Coronary Flow Measurements

OBJECTIVES The study sought to determine the coronary flow characteristics of angiographically intermediate stenoses classified as discordant by fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). BACKGROUND Discordance between FFR and iFR occurs in up to 20% of cases. No comparisons have been reported between the coronary flow characteristics of FFR/iFR discordant and angiographically unobstructed vessels. METHODS Baseline and hyperemic coronary flow velocity and coronary flow reserve (CFR) were compared across 5 vessel groups: FFRþ/iFRþ (108 vessels, n 1�4 91), FFR–/iFRþ (28 vessels, n 1�4 24), FFRþ/iFR– (22 vessels, n 1�4 22), FFR–/iFR– (208 vessels, n 1�4 154), and an unobstructed vessel group (201 vessels, n 1�4 153), in a post hoc analysis of the largest combined pressure and Doppler flow velocity registry (IDEAL [Iberian-Dutch-English] collaborators study). RESULTS FFRdisagreedwithiFRin14%(50of366).Baselineflowvelocitywassimilaracrossall5vesselgroups,includingthe unobstructed vessel group (p 1�4 0.34 for variance). In FFRþ/iFR– discordants, hyperemic flow velocity and CFR were similar to both FFR–/iFR– and unobstructed groups; 37.6 (interquartile range [IQR]: 26.1 to 50.4) cm/s vs. 40.0 [IQR: 29.7 to 52.3] cm/s and 42.2 [IQR: 33.8 to 53.2] cm/s and CFR 2.36 [IQR: 1.93 to 2.81] vs. 2.41 [IQR: 1.84 to 2.94] and 2.50 [IQR: 2.11 to 3.17], respectively (p > 0.05 for all). In FFR–/iFRþ discordants, hyperemic flow velocity, and CFR were similar to the FFRþ/iFRþ group; 28.2 (IQR: 20.5 to 39.7) cm/s versus 23.5 (IQR: 16.4 to 34.9) cm/s and CFR 1.44 (IQR: 1.29 to 1.85) versus 1.39 (IQR: 1.06 to 1.88), respectively (p > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS FFR/iFR disagreement was explained by differences in hyperemic coronary flow velocity. Furthermore, coronary stenoses classified as FFRþ/iFR– demonstrated similar coronary flow characteristics to angiographically unobstructed vessels

Clinical quantitative coronary artery stenosis and coronary atherosclerosis imaging: a Consensus Statement from the Quantitative Cardiovascular Imaging Study Group

The detection and characterization of coronary artery stenosis and atherosclerosis using imaging tools are key for clinical decision-making in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. In this regard, imaging-based quantification can be improved by choosing the most appropriate imaging modality for diagnosis, treatment and procedural planning. In this Consensus Statement, we provide clinical consensus recommendations on the optimal use of different imaging techniques in various patient populations and describe the advances in imaging technology. Clinical consensus recommendations on the appropriateness of each imaging technique for direct coronary artery visualization were derived through a three-step, real-time Delphi process that took place before, during and after the Second International Quantitative Cardiovascular Imaging Meeting in September 2022. According to the Delphi survey answers, CT is the method of choice to rule out obstructive stenosis in patients with an intermediate pre-test probability of coronary artery disease and enables quantitative assessment of coronary plaque with respect to dimensions, composition, location and related risk of future cardiovascular events, whereas MRI facilitates the visualization of coronary plaque and can be used in experienced centres as a radiation-free, second-line option for non-invasive coronary angiography. PET has the greatest potential for quantifying inflammation in coronary plaque but SPECT currently has a limited role in clinical coronary artery stenosis and atherosclerosis imaging. Invasive coronary angiography is the reference standard for stenosis assessment but cannot characterize coronary plaques. Finally, intravascular ultrasonography and optical coherence tomography are the most important invasive imaging modalities for the identification of plaques at high risk of rupture. The recommendations made in this Consensus Statement will help clinicians to choose the most appropriate imaging modality on the basis of the specific clinical scenario, individual patient characteristics and the availability of each imaging modality