Correlation between fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio with morphometric assessment by optical coherence tomography in diabetic patients.

Currently there is lack of data regarding the use of optical coherence tomography (OCT) to depict the hemodynamic relevance of coronary stenoses in diabetic patients. We sought to assess the diagnostic accuracy of OCT-derived morphologic assessment in identifying hemodynamically significant coronary lesions as determined by both, the resting instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and the hyperemic fractional flow reserve (FFR) in diabetic patients. Diabetic patients presenting with at least one intermediate coronary lesion were prospectively and consecutively enrolled. All lesions were systematically assessed by iFR, FFR and OCT. A total of 41 intermediate lesions were analysed. Mean iFR and FFR values were 0.90 ± 0.04 and 0.81 ± 0.06, respectively (intra-class correlation coefficient 0.49; 95% CI 0.22-0.79). A moderate correlation between iFR and OCT derived minimal lumen diameter (MLD, r = 0.49) and minimal lumen area (MLA, r = 0.50) was found. Conversely, there was a poor correlation between FFR and OCT-derived MLD (r = 0.34) and MLA (r = 0.32). The diagnostic efficiency of MLA and MLD to identify iFR significant stenoses showed an AUC of 0.82 (95% CI 0.69-0.95) for MLD and 0.83 (95% CI 0.71-0.96) for MLA. A worse diagnostic efficiency was found when FFR was used as the reference with an AUC of 0.71 (95% CI 0.54-0.87) for MLD and 0.70 (95% CI 0.53-0.87). OCT-derived MLA and MLD were the strongest independent anatomic predictors of abnormal iFR and FFR values. In diabetic patients, OCT-derived MLA and MLD showed a moderate diagnostic efficiency in identifying functionally significant coronary stenoses by FFR or iFR. In diabetics, anatomic OCT measurements better predicted resting than FFR-determined physiologically significant lesions.

Reliability of physiological assessment of coronary stenosis severity using intracoronary pressure techniques: a comprehensive analysis from a large cohort of consecutive intermediate coronary lesions.

AIMS: We sought to assess the reliability of the most frequently used intracoronary physiologic indices (including intravenous adenosine FFR [IV-FFR], intracoronary low-dose adenosine FFR [LD-IC-FFR], intracoronary high-dose adenosine FFR [HD-IC-FFR], Pd/Pa and iFR). We also sought to analyse factors affecting their reproducibility in a real-world patient population. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 91 lesions in 86 consecutive patients were included. Measurements of all physiological indices were repeated within a systematic standardised prospective protocol. All measured indices showed excellent test-retest reliability, with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) over 0.96. IV-FFR showed the highest coefficient of variation (CV) values among the studied measurements (Pd/Pa: 0.05; iFR: 0.10; LD-IC-FFR: 0.10; HD-IC-FFR: 0.08; IV-FFR: 0.12). Pd/Pa was significantly less variable than the other indices. On multivariate analysis, female gender, distal lesion location, history of hypertension or kidney failure, as well as presentation as an acute coronary syndrome, were associated with more variability in all physiological intracoronary measurements. CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of most frequently used intracoronary physiologic indices is high. Clinical and anatomic factors significantly influence the reliability of these physiologic indices.