Novel Multiphase Assessment for Predicting Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Obstruction Before Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: This study proposes a physiologic assessment of left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (LVOTO) that accommodates changes in systolic flow and accounts for the dynamic neo-left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT). BACKGROUND: Patients considered for transcatheter mitral valve replacement trials often screen-fail because of the perceived risk of LVOTO. In the Intrepid Global Pilot Study, assumed risk of LVOTO was based on computed tomography estimates of the neo-LVOT area computed at end-systole. However, this may overestimate actual risk. METHODS: Retrospective analyses were performed for screen-failed patients for potential LVOTO (n = 33) and treated patients (n = 29) with available dynamic computed tomography. A multiphase assessment of the neo-LVOT area was performed and represented as: 1) multiphase average; and 2) early systolic value. Prospective evaluation was performed in 9 patients approved for enrollment with multiphase and early systole methods that would have previously screen-failed with the end-systolic approach. RESULTS: Of 166 patients screened for possible inclusion; 32 were screen-failed for nonanatomical reasons. Screen failure for assumed LVOTO risk occurred in 37 of 134 (27.6%) patients. Retrospective analysis indicated a potential enrollment increase of 11 of 33 (33.3%) and 18 of 33 (54.5%) patients using multiphase and early systolic assessment methods. In the prospective cohort, there were no clinical observations of LVOTO 30 days post-procedure, despite assumed risk based on end-systolic estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Multiphase, and specifically early systolic, assessment of the neo-LVOT may better determine risk of LVOTO with transcatheter mitral valve replacement compared with end-systolic estimates. This novel approach has the potential to significantly increase patient eligibility, with over one-half of patients previously screen-failed now eligible for treatment.

Effect of Sex Differences on Invasive Measures of Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction in Patients With Angina in the Absence of Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated sex differences in coronary flow reserve (CFR) and the index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) in patients with angina in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease. BACKGROUND: Coronary microvascular dysfunction is associated with worse long-term outcomes, especially in women. Coronary flow reserve (CFR) and the index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) are 2 methods of assessing the coronary microcirculation. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 117 women and 40 men with angina in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease. We performed CFR, IMR, fractional flow reserve, and quantitative coronary angiography in the left anterior descending artery. Coronary flow was assessed with a thermodilution method by obtaining mean transit time (Tmn) (an inverse correlate to absolute flow) at rest and hyperemia. RESULTS: All patients had minimal atherosclerosis by quantitative coronary angiography (% diameter stenosis: 23.2 ± 12.3%), and epicardial disease was milder in women (fractional flow reserve: 0.88 ± 0.04 vs. 0.87 ± 0.04; p = 0.04). IMR was similar between the sexes (20.7 ± 9.8 vs. 19.1 ± 8.0; p = 0.45), but CFR was lower in women (3.8 ± 1.6 vs. 4.8 ± 1.9; p = 0.004). This was primarily due to a shorter resting Tmn in women (p = 0.005), suggesting increased resting coronary flow, whereas hyperemic Tmn was identical (p = 0.79). In multivariable analysis, female sex was an independent predictor of lower CFR and shorter resting Tmn. CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar microvascular function in women and men by IMR, CFR is lower in women. This discrepancy appears to be due to differences in resting coronary flow between the sexes. The effect of sex differences should be considered in interpretation of physiological indexes using resting coronary flow.

Understanding barriers to routine HIV screening: knowledge, attitudes, and practices of healthcare providers in King County, Washington.

OBJECTIVE: In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended routine HIV screening in healthcare settings for persons between 13 and 64 years old. In 2010, the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) was changed to align testing rules with these recommendations. We designed this survey to ascertain the current state of HIV testing and barriers to routine screening in King County, Washington. METHODS: Between March 23 and April 16, 2010, a convenience sample of healthcare providers completed an online survey. Providers answered true-false and multiple choice questions about national recommendations and the WAC, policies in their primary clinical settings, and their personal HIV testing practices. Providers were asked to agree or disagree whether commonly reported barriers limited their implementation of routine HIV screening. RESULTS: Although 76% of the 221 respondents knew that the CDC recommended routine HIV screening for persons regardless of their risk, 99 (45%) providers reported that their primary clinical setting had a policy to target testing based on patient risk factors. Forty-four (20%) providers reported that their primary clinical setting had a policy of routine HIV screening, 54 (25%) reported no official policy, and 15 (7%) did not know whether a policy existed. Only 11 (5%) providers offer HIV testing to all patients at initial visits. When asked about barriers to routine screening, 57% of providers agreed that perception that their patient population is low risk limits the number of HIV tests they perform. Only 26 (13%) providers agreed that concern about reimbursement posed a barrier to testing. CONCLUSIONS: Most providers participating in this survey continue to target HIV testing, despite knowledge of national recommendations. Efforts are still needed to educate providers and policymakers, clarify the recent WAC revisions, and implement structural changes in order to increase HIV testing in Washington State.

Simultaneous assessment of fractional and coronary flow reserves in cardiac transplant recipients: Physiologic Investigation for Transplant Arteriopathy (PITA Study).

BACKGROUND: The utility of measuring fractional flow reserve (FFR) to assess cardiac transplant arteriopathy has not been evaluated. Measuring coronary flow reserve (CFR) as well as FFR could add information about the microcirculation, but until recently, this has required two coronary wires. We evaluated a new method for simultaneously measuring FFR and CFR with a single wire to investigate transplant arteriopathy. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 53 cases of asymptomatic cardiac transplant recipients without angiographically significant coronary disease, FFR and thermodilution-derived CFR (CFRthermo) were measured simultaneously with the same coronary pressure wire in the left anterior descending artery and compared with volumetric intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) imaging. The average FFR was 0.88+/-0.07; in 75% of cases, the FFR was less than the normal threshold of 0.94; and in 15% of cases, the FFR was < or =0.80, the upper boundary of the gray zone of the ischemic threshold. There was a significant inverse correlation between FFR and IVUS-derived measures of plaque burden, including percent plaque volume (r=0.55, P<0.0001). The average CFRthermo was 2.5+/-1.2; in 47% of cases, CFRthermo was < or =2.0. In 14%, the FFR was normal (> or =0.94) and the CFR was abnormal (<2.0), suggesting predominant microcirculatory dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: FFR correlates with IVUS findings and is abnormal in a significant proportion of asymptomatic cardiac transplant patients with normal angiograms. Simultaneous measurement of CFR with the same pressure wire, with the use of a novel coronary thermodilution technique, is feasible and adds information to the physiological evaluation of these patients.

Cost-effectiveness of measuring fractional flow reserve to guide coronary interventions.

BACKGROUND: Most patients come to the catheterization laboratory without prior functional tests, which makes the cost-effective treatment of patients with intermediate coronary lesions a practical challenge. METHODS: We developed a decision model to compare the long-term costs and benefits of 3 strategies for treating patients with an intermediate coronary lesion and no prior functional study: 1) deferring the decision for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to obtain a nuclear stress imaging study (NUC strategy); 2) measuring fractional flow reserve (FFR) at the time of angiography to help guide the decision for PCI (FFR strategy); and 3) stenting all intermediate lesions (STENT strategy). On the basis of the literature, we estimated that 40% of intermediate lesions would produce ischemia, 70% of patients treated with PCI and 30% of patients treated medically would be free of angina after 4 years, and the quality-of-life adjustment for living with angina was 0.9 (1.0 = perfect health). We estimated the cost of FFR to be 761 dollars, the cost of nuclear stress imaging to be 1093 dollars, and the cost of medical treatment for angina to be 1775 dollars per year. The extra cost of splitting the angiogram and PCI as dictated by the NUC strategy was 3886 dollars by use of hospital cost-accounting data. Sensitivity and threshold analyses were performed to determine which variables affected our results. RESULTS: The FFR strategy saved 1795 dollars per patient compared with the NUC strategy and 3830 dollars compared with the STENT strategy. Quality-adjusted life expectancy was similar among the 3 strategies (NUC-FFR = 0.8 quality-adjusted days, FFR-STENT = 6 quality-adjusted life days). Compared with the FFR strategy, the NUC strategy was expensive (>800,000 dollars per quality-adjusted life year gained). Both screening strategies were superior to (less cost, better outcomes) the STENT strategy. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the NUC strategy would only become attractive (<50,000 dollars/quality-adjusted life years compared with FFR) if the specificity of nuclear stress imaging was >25% better than FFR. Our results were not altered significantly by changing the other assumptions. CONCLUSION: In patients with an intermediate coronary lesion and no prior functional study, measuring FFR to guide the decision to perform PCI may lead to significant cost savings compared with performing nuclear stress imaging or with simply stenting lesions in all patients.