Use of coronary physiology to guide revascularization in clinical practice: results of the F(FR)2 registry.

BACKGROUND: Despite the recommendation of coronary physiology to guide revascularization in angiographically intermediate stenoses without established correlation to ischemia, its uptake in clinical practice is slow. AIMS: This study aimed to analyze the use of coronary physiology in clinical practice. METHODS: Based on a multicenter registry (Fractional Flow Reserve Fax Registry, F(FR)2, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03055910), clinical use, consequences, and complications of coronary physiology were systematically analyzed. RESULTS: F(FR)2 enrolled 2,000 patients with 3,378 intracoronary pressure measurements. Most measurements (96.8%) were performed in angiographically intermediate stenoses. Out of 3,238 lesions in which coronary physiology was used to guide revascularization, revascularization was deferred in 2,643 (78.2%) cases. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) was the most common pressure index used (87.6%), with hyperemia induced by an intracoronary bolus of adenosine in 2,556 lesions (86.4%) and intravenous adenosine used for 384 measurements (13.0%). The route of adenosine administration did not influence FFR results (change-in-estimate -3.1% for regression model predicting FFR from diameter stenosis). Agreement with the subsequent revascularization decision was 93.4% for intravenous and 95.0% for intracoronary adenosine (p = 0.261). Coronary artery occlusion caused by the pressure wire was reported in two cases (0.1%) and dissection in three cases (0.2%), which was fatal once (0.1%). CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, intracoronary pressure measurements are mostly used to guide revascularization decisions in angiographically intermediate stenoses. Intracoronary and intravenous administration of adenosine seem equally suited. While the rate of serious complications of wire-based intracoronary pressure measurements in clinical practice seems to be low, it is not negligible.

Comparison of image quality in contrast-enhanced coronary-artery visualization by electron beam tomography and retrospectively electrocardiogram-gated multislice spiral computed tomography.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the image quality of electron beam tomography (EBT) and multislice spiral CT (MSCT) for coronary artery visualization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two groups of 30 patients without coronary stenoses were studied by MSCT (4 x 1 mm collimation) or EBT (3 mm slice thickness). Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), overall length of the visualized arteries and vessel length free of motion artifacts were measured. RESULTS: Length of visualized arteries was equal in MSCT and EBT. In EBT, longer segments were depicted free of motion artifacts (MSCT: 73%, EBT: 92% of visualized length, P< 0.001) and CNR was significantly higher than in MSCT (15.4 vs. 9.0; P< 0.001). In both modalities, vessel diameters correlated closely to quantitative coronary angiography. CONCLUSIONS: EBT and MSCT permit reliable coronary artery visualization and measurement of vessel diameters. For the used scan protocol, MSCT images had a lower CNR and were more frequently affected by motion.

Noninvasive visualization of coronary arteries using contrast-enhanced multidetector CT: influence of heart rate on image quality and stenosis detection.

OBJECTIVE: Although multidetector CT (MDCT) with retrospectively ECG-gated image reconstruction has been shown to permit noninvasive visualization of the coronary arteries, the 125-250 msec required for image acquisition frequently causes motion artifacts. We investigated the influence of a patient's heart rate on the presence of motion artifacts and on accuracy of stenosis detection on contrast-enhanced MDCT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 100 patients, MDCT was performed, and ECG-gated cross-sectional images were retrospectively reconstructed. From the 10 data sets obtained for each patient (reconstructed at 0-90% of the cardiac cycle in increments of 10%), we chose the best data set for every coronary artery. The images of the arteries were evaluated for occurrence of artifacts and the presence of high-grade stenosis (diameter reduction exceeding 70%) or occlusions. MDCT results were compared with coronary angiographic findings. RESULTS: Of the 400 coronary arteries, 115 (29%) could not be evaluated because of motion artifacts (n = 84) or other reasons (n = 31). Overall, 51 (49%) of 104 stenoses were revealed on MDCT. For detecting stenosis in those arteries that we could evaluate, MDCT had a sensitivity of 91% (51 of 56 stenoses detected) and a specificity of 89%. As the heart rate increased, the number of arteries that could be evaluated decreased, and overall sensitivity for stenosis detection decreased from 62% (heart rate < or = 70 beats per minute) to 33% (heart rate > 70 beats per minute). CONCLUSION: MDCT can reveal coronary stenoses, but the usefulness of MDCT as an aid in accurately evaluating stenoses decreases as a patient's heart rate increases.