Use of a Pressure Wire for Automatically Correcting Artifacts in Phasic Pressure Tracings From a Fluid-Filled Catheter.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Matching phasic pressure tracings between a fluid-filled catheter and high-fidelity pressure wire has received limited attention, although each part contributes half of the information to clinical decisions. We aimed to study the impact of a novel and automated method for improving the phasic calibration of a fluid-filled catheter by accounting for its oscillatory behavior. METHODS/MATERIALS: Retrospective analysis of drift check tracings was performed using our algorithm that corrects for mean difference (offset), temporal delays (timing), differential sensitivity of the manifold transducer and pressure wire sensor (gain), and the oscillatory behavior of the fluid-filled catheter described by its resonant frequency and damping factor (how quickly oscillations disappear after a change in pressure). RESULTS: Among 2886 cases, correcting for oscillations showed a large improvement in 28 % and a medium improvement in 41 % (decrease in root mean square error >0.5 mmHg to <1 or 1-2 mmHg, respectively). 96 % of oscillators were underdamped with median damping factor 0.27 and frequency 10.6 Hz. Fractional flow reserve or baseline Pd/Pa demonstrated no clinically important bias when ignoring oscillations. However, uncorrected subcycle non-hyperemic pressure ratios (NHPR) displayed both bias and scatter. CONCLUSIONS: By automatically accounting for the oscillatory behavior of a fluid-filled catheter system, phasic matching against a high-fidelity pressure wire can be improved compared to standard equalization methods. The majority of tracings contain artifacts, mainly due to underdamped oscillations, and neglecting them leads to biased estimates of equalization parameters. No clinically important bias exists for whole-cycle metrics, in contrast to significant effects on subcycle NHPR.

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 (r2=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.

Combined Pressure and Flow Measurements to Guide Treatment of Coronary Stenoses.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess clinical outcomes after combined pressure and flow assessment of coronary lesions. BACKGROUND: Although fractional flow reserve (FFR) remains the invasive reference standard for revascularization, approximately 40% of stenoses have discordant coronary flow reserve (CFR). Optimal treatment for these disagreements remains unclear. METHODS: A total of 455 subjects with 668 lesions were enrolled from 12 sites in 6 countries. Only lesions with reduced FFR and CFR underwent revascularization; all other combinations received initial medical therapy. RESULTS: Fourteen percent of lesions had FFR ≤0.8 but CFR ≥2.0 while 23% of lesions had FFR >0.8 but CFR <2.0. During 2-year follow-up, the primary endpoint of composite all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization in lesions with FFR ≤0.8 but CFR ≥2.0 (10.8% event rate) compared with lesions with FFR >0.8 and CFR ≥2.0 (6.2% event rate) exceeded the prespecified +10% noninferiority margin (P = 0.090). Target vessel failure models using both continuous FFR and continuous CFR found that only higher FFR was associated with reduced target vessel failure (Cox P = 0.007) after initial medical treatment. Central core laboratory review accepted 69.8% of all tracings with mean differences of <0.01 for FFR and <0.02 for CFR, indicating no material impact on clinical measurements or outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: All-cause death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization after 2 years was not noninferior between lesions with FFR ≤0.8 but CFR ≥2.0 and lesions with FFR >0.8 and CFR ≥2.0. These results do not support using invasive CFR ≥2.0 to defer revascularization for lesions with reduced FFR if the patient would otherwise be a candidate on the basis of the entire clinical scenario and treatment preference.

Coronary Microcirculation in Aortic Stenosis: Pathophysiology, Invasive Assessment, and Future Directions.

With the increasing prevalence of aortic stenosis (AS) due to a growing elderly population, a proper understanding of its physiology is paramount to guide therapy and define severity. A better understanding of the microvasculature in AS could improve clinical care by predicting left ventricular remodeling or anticipate the interplay between epicardial stenosis and myocardial dysfunction. In this review, we combine five decades of literature regarding microvascular, coronary, and aortic valve physiology with emerging insights from newly developed invasive tools for quantifying microcirculatory function. Furthermore, we describe the coupling between microcirculation and epicardial stenosis, which is currently under investigation in several randomized trials enrolling subjects with concomitant AS and coronary disease. To clarify the physiology explained previously, we present two instructive cases with invasive pressure measurements quantifying coexisting valve and coronary stenoses. Finally, we pose open clinical and research questions whose answers would further expand our knowledge of microvascular dysfunction in AS. These trials were registered with NCT03042104, NCT03094143, and NCT02436655.

Coronary Flow Capacity to Identify Stenosis Associated With Coronary Flow Improvement After Revascularization: A Combined Analysis From DEFINE FLOW and IDEAL.

Background Coronary flow capacity (CFC), which is a categorical assessment based on the combination of hyperemic coronary flow and coronary flow reserve (CFR), has been introduced as a comprehensive assessment of the coronary circulation to overcome the limitations of CFR alone. The aim of this study was to quantify coronary flow changes after percutaneous coronary intervention in relation to the classification of CFC and the current physiological cutoff values of fractional flow reserve, instantaneous wave-free ratio, and CFR. Methods and Results Using the combined data set from DEFINE FLOW (Distal Evaluation of Functional Performance With Intravascular Sensors to Assess the Narrowing Effect -Combined Pressure and Doppler FLOW Velocity Measurements) and IDEAL (Iberian-Dutch-English), a total of 133 vessels that underwent intracoronary Doppler flow measurement before and after percutaneous coronary intervention were analyzed. CFC classified prerevascularization lesions as normal (14), mildly reduced (40), moderately reduced (31), and severely reduced (48). Lesions with larger impairment of CFC showed greater increase in coronary flow and vice versa (median percent increase in coronary flow by revascularization: 4.2%, 25.9%, 50.1%, and 145.5%, respectively; P<0.001). Compared with the conventional cutoff values of fractional flow reserve, instantaneous wave-free ratio, and CFR, an ischemic CFC defined as moderately to severely reduced CFC showed higher diagnostic accuracy with higher specificity to predict a >50% increase in coronary flow after percutaneous coronary intervention. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis demonstrated that only CFC has a superior predictive efficacy to CFR (P<0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed lesions with ischemic CFC to be the independent predictor of a significant coronary flow increase after percutaneous coronary intervention (odds ratio, 10.7; 95% CI, 4.6-24.8; P<0.001). Conclusions CFC showed significant improvement of identification of lesions that benefit from revascularization compared with CFR with respect to coronary flow increase. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02328820.

Phasic pressure measurements for coronary and valvular interventions using fluid-filled catheters: Errors, automated correction, and clinical implications.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to develop an automatic method for correcting common errors in phasic pressure tracings for physiology-guided interventions on coronary and valvular stenosis. BACKGROUND: Effective coronary and valvular interventions rely on accurate hemodynamic assessment. Phasic (subcycle) indexes remain intrinsic to valvular stenosis and are emerging for coronary stenosis. Errors, corrections, and clinical implications of fluid-filled catheter phasic pressure assessments have not been assessed in the current era of ubiquitous, high-fidelity pressure wire sensors. METHODS: We recruited patients undergoing invasive coronary physiology assessment. Phasic aortic pressure signals were recorded simultaneously using a fluid-filled guide catheter and 0.014″ pressure wire before and after standard calibration as well as after pullback. We included additional subjects undergoing hemodynamic assessment before and after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Using the pressure wire as reference standard, we developed an automatic algorithm to match phasic pressures. RESULTS: Removing pressure offset and temporal shift produced the largest improvements in root mean square (RMS) error between catheter and pressure wire signals. However, further optimization <1 mmHg RMS error was possible by accounting for differential gain and the oscillatory behavior of the fluid-filled guide. The impact of correction was larger for subcycle (like systole or diastole) versus whole-cycle metrics, indicating a key role for valvular stenosis and emerging coronary pressure ratios. CONCLUSIONS: When calibrating phasic aortic pressure signals using a pressure wire, correction requires these parameters: offset, timing, gain, and oscillations (frequency and damping factor). Automatically eliminating common errors may improve some clinical decisions regarding physiology-based intervention.

Distal Evaluation of Functional performance with Intravascular sensors to assess the Narrowing Effect-combined pressure and Doppler FLOW velocity measurements (DEFINE-FLOW) trial: Rationale and trial design.

BACKGROUND: It remains uncertain if invasive coronary physiology beyond fractional flow reserve (FFR) can refine lesion selection for revascularization or provide additional prognostic value. Coronary flow reserve (CFR) equals the ratio of hyperemic to baseline flow velocity and has a wealth of invasive and noninvasive data supporting its validity. Because of fundamental physiologic relationships, binary classification of FFR and CFR disagrees in approximately 30%-40% of cases. Optimal management of these discordant cases requires further study. AIM: The aim of the study was to determine the prognostic value of combined FFR and CFR measurements to predict the 24-month rate of major adverse cardiac events. Secondary end points include repeatability of FFR and CFR, angina burden, and the percentage of successful FFR/CFR measurements which will not be excluded by the core laboratory. METHODS: This prospective, nonblinded, nonrandomized, and multicenter study enrolled 455 subjects from 12 sites in Europe and Japan. Patients underwent physiologic lesion assessment using the 0.014" Philips Volcano ComboWire XT that provides simultaneous pressure and Doppler velocity sensors. Intermediate coronary lesions received only medical treatment unless both FFR (≤0.8) and CFR (<2.0) were below thresholds. The primary outcome is a 24-month composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, and revascularization. CONCLUSION: The DEFINE-FLOW study will determine the prognostic value of invasive CFR assessment when measured simultaneously with FFR, with a special emphasis on discordant classifications. Our hypothesis is that lesions with an intact CFR ≥ 2.0 but reduced FFR ≤ 0.8 will have a 2-year outcome with medical treatment similar to lesions with FFR> 0.80 and CFR ≥ 2.0. Enrollment has been completed, and final follow-up will occur in November 2019.

Pressure gradient vs. flow relationships to characterize the physiology of a severely stenotic aortic valve before and after transcatheter valve implantation.

Aims: Echocardiography and tomographic imaging have documented dynamic changes in aortic stenosis (AS) geometry and severity during both the cardiac cycle and stress-induced increases in cardiac output. However, corresponding pressure gradient vs. flow relationships have not been described. Methods and results: We recruited 16 routine transcatheter aortic valve implantations (TAVI's) for graded dobutamine infusions both before and after implantation; 0.014″ pressure wires in the aorta and left ventricle (LV) continuously measured the transvalvular pressure gradient (ΔP) while a pulmonary artery catheter regularly assessed cardiac output by thermodilution. Before TAVI, ΔP did not display a consistent relationship with transvalvular flow (Q). Neither linear resistor (median R2 0.16) nor quadratic orifice (median R2 < 0.01) models at rest predicted stress observations; the severely stenotic valve behaved like a combination. The unitless ratio of aortic to left ventricular pressures during systolic ejection under stress conditions correlated best with post-TAVI flow improvement. After TAVI, a highly linear relationship (median R2 0.96) indicated a valid valve resistance. Conclusion: Pressure loss vs. flow curves offer a fundamental fluid dynamic synthesis for describing aortic valve pathophysiology. Severe AS does not consistently behave like an orifice (as suggested by Gorlin) or a resistor, whereas TAVI devices behave like a pure resistor. During peak dobutamine, the ratio of aortic to left ventricular pressures during systolic ejection provides a 'fractional flow reserve' of the aortic valve that closely approximates the complex, changing fluid dynamics. Because resting assessment cannot reliably predict stress haemodynamics, 'valvular fractional flow' warrants study to explain exertional symptoms in patients with only moderate AS at rest.

What can intracoronary pressure measurements tell us about flow reserve? Pressure-Bounded coronary flow reserve and example application to the randomized DEFER trial.

OBJECTIVE: We propose a novel technique called pressure-bounded coronary flow reserve (pb-CFR) and demonstrate its application to the randomized DEFER trial. BACKGROUND: Intracoronary flow reserve assessment remains underutilized relative to pressure measurements partly due to less robust tools. METHODS: While rest and hyperemic intracoronary pressure measurements cannot quantify CFR exactly, they do provide upper and lower bounds. We validated pb-CFR invasively against traditional CFR, then applied it to high fractional flow reserve (FFR ≥ 0.75) lesions in DEFER randomized to revascularization or medical therapy. RESULTS: pb-CFR showed an 84.4% accuracy to predict invasive CFR < 2 or CFR ≥ 2 in 107 lesions. In its proof of concept application to DEFER lesions with FFR ≥ 0.75, the 28 with pb-CFR < 2 compared to 28 with pb-CFR ≥ 2 had a non-significant reduction in freedom from angina (61% vs. 71% at 5 years, P = 0.57) and a non-significantly higher rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE, 25% vs. 15%, P = 0.34). Lesions with FFR ≥ 0.75 but pb-CFR < 2 showed no difference in freedom from angina (61% vs. 50%, P = 0.54) or MACE (25% vs. 38%, P = 0.27) between the 28 randomized to medical therapy and the 16 randomized to revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: pb-CFR offers a new method for studying FFR/CFR discordances using regular pressure wire measurements. As an example application, DEFER suggested that low pb-CFR with high FFR may be a risk marker for more angina and worse outcomes, but that this risk cannot be modified by revascularization. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Imaging Microvascular Dysfunction and Mechanisms for Female-Male Differences in CAD.

Microvascular dysfunction or disease is most commonly associated with diffuse epicardial coronary atherosclerosis and endothelial dysfunction, whereas it is less common as a distinct, separate, isolated pathophysiology. The different manifestations of coronary artery disease in women relate in part to their smaller coronary arteries, higher coronary blood flow, and higher endothelial shear stress, which have profound effects on endothelial function and development or resistance to atherosclerosis, its symptomatic presentation, outcomes, and treatment. The complex interactions of focal stenosis, diffuse epicardial atherosclerotic coronary narrowing, and microvascular dysfunction make definitive diagnosis and management difficult by use of standard noninvasive and invasive physiological and anatomic technologies. However, quantitative rest-stress myocardial perfusion, best documented by positron emission tomography, combined with clinical circumstances usually provides a definitive diagnosis to guide management, including vigorous risk factor management and revascularization for patients with physiologically severe epicardial stenosis by quantitative positron emission tomography.

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 <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 < 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.

Repeatability of Fractional Flow Reserve Despite Variations in Systemic and Coronary Hemodynamics.

OBJECTIVES: This study classified and quantified the variation in fractional flow reserve (FFR) due to fluctuations in systemic and coronary hemodynamics during intravenous adenosine infusion. BACKGROUND: Although FFR has become a key invasive tool to guide treatment, questions remain regarding its repeatability and stability during intravenous adenosine infusion because of systemic effects that can alter driving pressure and heart rate. METHODS: We reanalyzed data from the VERIFY (VERification of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve for the Assessment of Coronary Artery Stenosis Severity in EverydaY Practice) study, which enrolled consecutive patients who were infused with intravenous adenosine at 140 µg/kg/min and measured FFR twice. Raw phasic pressure tracings from the aorta (Pa) and distal coronary artery (Pd) were transformed into moving averages of Pd/Pa. Visual analysis grouped Pd/Pa curves into patterns of similar response. Quantitative analysis of the Pd/Pa curves identified the "smart minimum" FFR using a novel algorithm, which was compared with human core laboratory analysis. RESULTS: A total of 190 complete pairs came from 206 patients after exclusions. Visual analysis revealed 3 Pd/Pa patterns: "classic" (sigmoid) in 57%, "humped" (sigmoid with superimposed bumps of varying height) in 39%, and "unusual" (no pattern) in 4%. The Pd/Pa pattern repeated itself in 67% of patient pairs. Despite variability of Pd/Pa during the hyperemic period, the "smart minimum" FFR demonstrated excellent repeatability (bias -0.001, SD 0.018, paired p = 0.93, r(2) = 98.2%, coefficient of variation = 2.5%). Our algorithm produced FFR values not significantly different from human core laboratory analysis (paired p = 0.43 vs. VERIFY; p = 0.34 vs. RESOLVE). CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous adenosine produced 3 general patterns of Pd/Pa response, with associated variability in aortic and coronary pressure and heart rate during the hyperemic period. Nevertheless, FFR - when chosen appropriately - proved to be a highly reproducible value. Therefore, operators can confidently select the "smart minimum" FFR for patient care. Our results suggest that this selection process can be automated, yet comparable to human core laboratory analysis.

History and Development of Coronary Flow Reserve and Fractional Flow Reserve for Clinical Applications.

We discuss the historical development of clinical coronary physiology, emphasizing coronary flow reserve (CFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR). Our analysis focuses on the clinical motivations and technologic advances that prompted and enabled the application of physiology for patient diagnosis. CFR grew from the general concepts of physiologic and coronary reserve, linking the anatomic severity of a lesion to its impact on hyperemic flow. FFR developed from existing models relating pressure measurements to the potential for flow to increase after removing a stenosis. Because pressure measurements have proved easier and more robust than flow measurements, FFR has become the dominant metric.