Fractional Flow Reserve in Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Guide for Non-Culprit Lesions?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sulimov DS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4472643 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The role of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) in the assessment of non-culprit lesions (NCL) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is debated. In this prospective clinical study, a total of 68 ACS patients with 89 moderate (30-70% diameter stenosis) NCLs were enrolled to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of on-site CT-FFR compared to invasive fractional flow reserve (FFRi) and dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) as reference standards. CT-FFR and FFRi values ≤ 0.80, as well as new or worsening wall motion abnormality in ≥2 contiguous segments on the supplying area of an NCL on DSE, were considered positive for ischemia. Sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive value of CT-FFR relative to FFRi and DSE were 51%, 89%, 75%, and 74% and 37%, 77%, 42%, and 74%, respectively. CT-FFR value (β = 0.334, p < 0.001) and CT-FFR drop from proximal to distal measuring point [(CT-FFR drop), β = -0.289, p = 0.002)] were independent predictors of FFRi value in multivariate linear regression analysis. Based on comparing their receiver operating characteristics area under the curve (AUC) values, CT-FFR value and CT-FFR drop provided better discriminatory power than CCTA-based minimal lumen diameter stenosis to distinguish between an NCL with positive and negative FFRi [0.77 (95% Confidence Intervals, CI: 0.67-0.86) and 0.77 (CI: 0.67-0.86) vs. 0.63 (CI: 0.52-0.73), p = 0.029 and p = 0.043, respectively]. Neither CT-FFR value nor CT-FFR drop was predictive of regional wall motion score index at peak stress (β = -0.440, p = 0.441 and β = 0.403, p = 0.494) or was able to confirm ischemia on the territory of an NCL revealed by DSE (AUC = 0.54, CI: 0.43-0.64 and AUC = 0.55, CI: 0.44-0.65, respectively). In conclusion, on-site CT-FFR is superior to conventional CCTA-based anatomical analysis in the assessment of moderate NCLs; however, its diagnostic capacity is not sufficient to make it a gatekeeper to invasive functional evaluation. Moreover, based on its comparison with DSE, CT-FFR might not yield any information on the microvascular dysfunction in the territory of an NCL.
| S-EPMC9698642 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a leading global cause of morbidity and mortality, and improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of CAD can reduce the health and economic burden of this condition. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is an evidence-based diagnostic test of the physiological significance of a coronary artery stenosis. Fractional flow reserve is a pressure-derived index of the maximal achievable myocardial blood flow in the presence of an epicardial coronary stenosis as a ratio to maximum achievable flow if that artery were normal. When compared with standard angiography-guided management, FFR disclosure is impactful on the decision for revascularization and clinical outcomes. In this article, we review recent developments with FFR in patients with stable CAD and recent myocardial infarction. Specifically, we review novel developments in our understanding of CAD pathophysiology, diagnostic applications, prognostic studies, clinical trials, and clinical guidelines.
| S-EPMC4816759 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Approximately 30-50% patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STMEI) were found to have non-infarct-related coronary artery (IRA) disease, which was significantly associated with worse prognosis. However, challenges still remain for these patients: which non-infarct-related lesion should be treated and when should the procedure be performed? The present study aims to investigate Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided complete revascularization (CR) in comparison to culprit-only revascularization (COR) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multi-vessel disease (MVD). METHODS:Three appropriate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected from the PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library /CENTRAL databases. 1631 patients (688 patients underwent FFR-guided CR and 943 patients underwent COR) following-up 12-44 months was evaluated. RESULTS:FFR-guided CR significantly reduced major adverse cardiac event (MACE) (OR 0.47, 95% CI: 0.35-0.62, P < 0.00001) and ischemia-driven repeat revascularization (OR 0.36, 0.26-0.51, P < 0.00001), as compared to COR. However, there is no difference in all-cause mortality (OR 1.24, 0.65-2.35, P = 0.51). CONCLUSIONS:In patients with STEMI and MVD, FFR-guided CR is better than COR in terms of MACE and ischemia-driven repeat revascularization, while there are almost similar in all-cause mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION:All analyses were based on previous published studies, thus no ethical approval and patient consent are required COMPARE-ACUTE trial number NCT01399736 ; DANAMI-3-PRIMULTI trial number NCT01960933 .
| S-EPMC6397458 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Computed tomography angiography (CTA) has played a significant role in evaluation of coronary artery disease in the last decade and has demonstrated high sensitivity and negative predictive values. However, the positive predictive value as compared with invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) is limited. CT-FFR has emerged as a disruptive noninvasive technology with higher specificity and diagnostic accuracy for detection of hemodynamically significant coronary lesions as compared with invasive FFR than conventional coronary CTA. CT-FFR has been shown to be cost-effective as a gate-keeper to invasive coronary angiography and has the potential to limit unnecessary invasive angiography studies.
| S-EPMC6553476 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Physiologically driven coronary revascularization has been shown to be superior in terms of better outcomes and optimum resource utilization for percutaneous interventions. However, its applicability to surgical myocardial revascularization lacks evidence base. GRAFITTI Trial aims at bridging this gap and Dr. F Casselman discusses its rationale and design.
| S-EPMC7525716 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment provides anatomical and physiological information that is often used to tailor treatment strategies in coronary artery disease. Whilst robust data validates FFR use in stable ischaemic heart disease, its use in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is less well investigated. We critically review the current data surrounding FFR use across the spectrum of ACS including culprit and non-culprit artery analysis. With adenosine being conventionally used to induce maximal hyperaemia during FFR assessment, co-existent clinical conditions may preclude its use during acute myocardial infarction. Therefore, we include a current review of instantaneous wave free ratio as a novel vasodilator independent method of assessing lesion severity as an alternative strategy to guide revascularisation in ACS.
| S-EPMC5497167 | biostudies-other
Project description:ImportanceComplete revascularization by non-infarct-related artery (IRA) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction is standard practice to improve patient prognosis. However, it is unclear whether a fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided or angiography-guided treatment strategy for non-IRA PCI would be more cost-effective.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FFR-guided compared with angiography-guided PCI in patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease.Design, setting, and participantsIn this prespecified cost-effectiveness analysis of the FRAME-AMI randomized clinical trial, patients were randomly allocated to either FFR-guided or angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions between August 19, 2016, and December 24, 2020. Patients were aged 19 years or older, had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI and underwent successful primary or urgent PCI, and had at least 1 non-IRA lesion (diameter stenosis >50% in a major epicardial coronary artery or major side branch with a vessel diameter of ≥2.0 mm). Data analysis was performed on August 27, 2023.InterventionFractional flow reserve-guided vs angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions.Main outcomes and measuresThe model simulated death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. Future medical costs and benefits were discounted by 4.5% per year. The main outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), direct medical costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net monetary benefit (INB) of FFR-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI. State-transition Markov models were applied to the Korean, US, and European health care systems using medical cost (presented in US dollars), utilities data, and transition probabilities from meta-analysis of previous trials.ResultsThe FRAME-AMI trial randomized 562 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 63.3 (11.4) years. Most patients were men (474 [84.3%]). Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI increased QALYs by 0.06 compared with angiography-guided PCI. The total cumulative cost per patient was estimated as $1208 less for FFR-guided compared with angiography-guided PCI. The ICER was -$19 484 and the INB was $3378, indicating that FFR-guided PCI was more cost-effective for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed consistent results and the likelihood iteration of cost-effectiveness in FFR-guided PCI was 97%. When transition probabilities from the pairwise meta-analysis of the FLOWER-MI and FRAME-AMI trials were used, FFR-guided PCI was more cost-effective than angiography-guided PCI in the Korean, US, and European health care systems, with an INB of $3910, $8557, and $2210, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the likelihood iteration of cost-effectiveness with FFR-guided PCI was 85%, 82%, and 31% for the Korean, US, and European health care systems, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceThis cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that FFR-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions saved medical costs and increased quality of life better than angiography-guided PCI for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI should be considered in determining the treatment strategy for non-IRA stenoses in these patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02715518.
| S-EPMC10811558 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsCoronary guidewire-based diagnostic assessments with hyperemia may cause iatrogenic complications. We assessed the safety of guidewire-based measurement of coronary physiology, using intravenous adenosine, in patients with an acute coronary syndrome.MethodsWe prospectively enrolled invasively managed STEMI and NSTEMI patients in two simultaneously conducted studies in 6 centers (NCT01764334; NCT02072850). All of the participants underwent a diagnostic coronary guidewire study using intravenous adenosine (140 μg/kg/min) infusion for 1-2 min. The patients were prospectively assessed for the occurrence of serious adverse events (SAEs) and symptoms and invasively measured hemodynamics were also recorded.Results648 patients (n=298 STEMI patients in 1 hospital; mean time to reperfusion 253 min; n=350 NSTEMI in 6 hospitals; median time to angiography from index chest pain episode 3 (2, 5) days) were included between March 2011 and May 2013. Two NSTEMI patients (0.3% overall) experienced a coronary dissection related to the guidewire. No guidewire dissections occurred in the STEMI patients. Chest symptoms were reported in the majority (86%) of patient's symptoms during the adenosine infusion. No serious adverse events occurred during infusion of adenosine and all of the symptoms resolved after the infusion ceased.ConclusionsIn this multicenter analysis, guidewire-based measurement of FFR and IMR using intravenous adenosine was safe in patients following STEMI or NSTEMI. Self-limiting symptoms were common but not associated with serious adverse events. Finally, coronary dissection in STEMI and NSTEMI patients was noted to be a rare phenomenon.
| S-EPMC4669307 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is a novel method to assess the ischemic potential of coronary artery stenoses. Clinical trial data have shown that iFR has acceptable diagnostic agreement with fractional flow reserve (FFR), the reference standard for the functional assessment of coronary stenoses. This study compares iFR measurements with FFR measurements in a real world, single-center setting.Methods and resultsInstantaneous wave-free ratio and FFR were measured in 50 coronary artery lesions in 42 patients, with FFR ≤ 0.8 classified as functionally significant. An iFR-only technique, using a treatment cut-off value, iFR ≤ 0.89, provided a classification agreement of 84% with FFR ≤ 0.80. Use of a hybrid iFR-FFR technique, incorporating FFR measurement for lesions within the iFR gray zone of 0.86-0.93, would improve classification agreement with FFR to 94%, with diagnosis achieved without the need for hyperemia in 57% patients.ConclusionThis study in a real-world setting demonstrated good classification agreement between iFR and FFR. Use of a hybrid iFR-FFR technique would achieve high diagnostic accuracy while minimizing adenosine use, compared with routine FFR.
| S-EPMC5447668 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose of reviewAccumulating evidence exists for the value of coronary physiology for clinical decision-making in ischemic heart disease (IHD). The most frequently used pressure-derived index to assess stenosis severity, the fractional flow reserve (FFR), has long been considered the gold standard for this purpose, despite the fact that the FFR assesses solely epicardial stenosis severity and aims to estimate coronary flow impairment in the coronary circulation. The coronary flow reserve (CFR) directly assesses coronary blood flow in the coronary circulation, including both the epicardial coronary artery and the coronary microvasculature, but is nowadays less established than FFR. It is now recognized that both tools may provide insight into the pathophysiological substrate of ischemic heart disease, and that particularly combined FFR and CFR measurements provide a comprehensive insight into the multilevel involvement of IHD. This review discusses the diagnostic and prognostic characteristics, as well as future implications of combined assessment of FFR and CFR pressure and flow measurements as parameters for inducible ischemia.Recent findingsFFR and CFR disagree in up to 40% of all cases, giving rise to fundamental questions regarding the role of FFR in contemporary ischemic heart disease management, and implying a renewed approach in clinical management of these patients using combined coronary pressure and flow measurement to allow appropriate identification of patients at risk for cardiovascular events. This review emphasizes the value of comprehensive coronary physiology measurements in assessing the pathophysiological substrate of IHD, and the importance of acknowledging the broad spectrum of epicardial and microcirculatory involvement in IHD. Increasing interest and large clinical trials are expected to further strengthen the potential of advanced coronary physiology in interventional cardiology, consequently inducing reconsideration of current clinical guidelines.
| S-EPMC6061210 | biostudies-literature