ACIST-FFR Study (Assessment of Catheter-Based Interrogation and Standard Techniques for Fractional Flow Reserve Measurement).

BACKGROUND: Measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide coronary revascularization lags despite robust supportive data, partly because of the handling characteristics of traditional coronary pressure wires. An optical pressure-monitoring microcatheter, which can be advanced over a traditional coronary guidewire, facilitates FFR assessment but may underestimate pressure wire-derived FFR. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this prospective, multicenter trial, 169 patients underwent FFR assessment with a pressure wire alone and with a pressure microcatheter over the pressure wire. An independent core laboratory performed quantitative coronary angiography and evaluated all pressure tracings. The primary end point was the bias or difference between the microcatheter FFR and the pressure wire FFR, as assessed by Bland-Altman analysis. The mean difference between the microcatheter and the pressure wire-derived FFR values was -0.022 (95% confidence interval, -0.029 to -0.015). On multivariable analysis, reference vessel diameter (P=0.027) and lesion length (P=0.044) were independent predictors of bias between the 2 FFR measurements. When the microcatheter FFR was added to this model, it was the only independent predictor of bias (P<0.001). The mean FFR value from the microcatheter was significantly lower than from the pressure wire (0.81 versus 0.83; P<0.001). In 3% of cases (95% confidence interval, 1.3%-6.7%), there was clinically meaningful diagnostic discordance, with the FFR from the pressure wire >0.80 and that from the microcatheter <0.75. These findings were similar when including all 210 patients with site-reported paired FFR data. CONCLUSIONS: An optical, pressure-monitoring microcatheter measures lower FFR compared with a pressure wire, but the diagnostic impact appears to be minimal in most cases. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02577484.

High left ventricular mass index does not limit the utility of fractional flow reserve for the physiologic assessment of lesion severity.

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate that fractional flow reserve (FFR) of vessels in patients with high left ventricular mass index (LVMI) should be similar to that of matched vessels in patients with normal LVMI. BACKGROUND: FFR is a physiologic index of coronary lesion severity. It is not known whether FFR remains useful in the setting of increased LVMI, when microvascular abnormalities may be present. METHODS: LVMI was calculated in 84 patients using contrast left ventriculography after validation with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Cardiac risk factors, LV ejection fraction (LVEF), minimal lumen diameter (MLD), percent diameter stenosis (%DS), lesion length and FFR were compared in 22 patients with high LVMI to 62 patients with normal LVMI and angiographically-matched vessels. RESULTS: LVMI was 126 +/- 21 g/m2 in the high LVMI group and 84 +/- 21 g/m2 in the normal LVMI group. There were no differences in age, LVEF, diabetes, hypertension or dyslipidemia between groups. Angiographic lesion characteristics were well matched in patients with high versus normal LVMI (MLD 1.3 +/- 0.6 mm vs. 1.3 +/- 0.6 mm, %DS 61 +/- 13% vs. 62 +/- 13%, and lesion length 14.2 +/- 7.0 mm vs. 14.3 +/- 7.0 mm; p = NS for all). Importantly, no difference in FFR was observed (0.79 +/- 0.12 vs. 0.78 +/- 0.16; p = NS) between the groups, and LVMI did not correlate with FFR in a multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: FFR of coronary lesions in patients with high LVMI is no different than FFR of angiographically-matched lesions in patients with normal LVMI, suggesting that high LV mass should not limit the utility of FFR as an index of coronary lesion severity.

Outcome of patients with acute coronary syndromes and moderate coronary lesions undergoing deferral of revascularization based on fractional flow reserve assessment.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the outcome of consecutive patients with and without acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in whom revascularization was deferred on the basis of fractional flow reserve (FFR). BACKGROUND: FFR < 0.75 correlates with ischemia on noninvasive tests and deferral of treatment on the basis of FFR is associated with low event rates in selected populations. Whether these low event rates apply to patients undergoing assessment of moderate stenoses in association with an ACS is not known and is an important clinical question. METHODS: Retrospective analysis and 12 month follow-up of consecutive, moderate (50-70%) de novo coronary lesions assessed with FFR. RESULTS: Revascularization was deferred in 120 lesions (111 patients) with FFR > or = 0.75. ACS was present in 35 patients (40 lesions). The clinical, angiographic and coronary hemodynamic characteristics of patients with and without ACS were similar. Among the 35 patients with ACS, there were 3 deaths, 1 MI, and 6 target vessel revascularizations (TVRs) (15% of lesions). Among the 76 patients without ACS, there were 5 deaths, 1 MI, and 7 TVR's (9% of lesions). CONCLUSIONS: Deferral of revascularization based on FFR in patients with ACS and moderate coronary stenoses is associated with acceptable and low event rates at 1 year.

Economic evaluation of bivalirudin with provisional glycoprotein IIB/IIIA inhibition versus heparin with routine glycoprotein IIB/IIIA inhibition for percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the REPLACE-2 trial.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the cost of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using bivalirudin with provisional platelet glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibition with that of heparin + routine GP IIb/IIIa inhibition. BACKGROUND: Although GP IIb/IIIa inhibition has been shown to reduce ischemic complications in a broad range of patients undergoing PCI, many patients currently do not receive such therapy because of concerns about bleeding complications or cost. Recently, bivalirudin with provisional GP IIb/IIIa inhibition has been validated as an alternative to heparin + routine GP IIb/IIIa inhibition for patients undergoing PCI. However, the cost-effectiveness of this novel strategy is unknown. METHODS: In the Randomized Evaluation in PCI Linking Angiomax to Reduced Clinical Events (REPLACE)-2 trial, 4,651 U.S. patients undergoing non-emergent PCI were randomized to receive bivalirudin with provisional GP IIb/IIIa (n = 2,319) versus heparin + routine GP IIb/IIIa (n = 2,332). Resource utilization data were collected prospectively through 30-day follow-up on all U.S. patients. Medical care costs were estimated using standard methods including bottom-up accounting (for procedural costs), the Medicare fee schedule (for physician services), hospital billing data (for 2,821 of 4,862 admissions), and regression-based approaches for the remaining hospitalizations. RESULTS: Among the bivalirudin group, 7.7% required provisional GP IIb/IIIa. Thirty-day ischemic outcomes including death or myocardial infarction were similar for the bivalirudin and GP IIb/IIIa groups, but bivalirudin resulted in lower rates of major bleeding (2.8% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.002) and minor bleeding (15.1% vs. 28.1%, p < 0.001). Compared with routine GP IIb/IIIa, in-hospital and 30-day costs were reduced by $405 (95% confidence interval [CI] $37 to $773) and $374 (95% CI $61 to $688) per patient with bivalirudin (p < 0.001 for both). Regression modeling demonstrated that, in addition to the costs of the anticoagulants themselves, hospital savings were due primarily to reductions in major bleeding (cost savings = $107/patient), minor bleeding ($52/patient), and thrombocytopenia ($47/patient). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with heparin + routine GP IIb/IIIa inhibition, bivalirudin + provisional GP IIb/IIIa inhibition resulted in similar acute ischemic events and cost savings of $375 to $400/patient depending on the analytic perspective.

Effect of acute myocardial infarction on the utility of fractional flow reserve for the physiologic assessment of the severity of coronary artery narrowing.

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has been shown to be a useful physiologic index of coronary lesion severity in myocardial beds of patients without prior infarction and in those with remote infarction. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) causes myocardial necrosis and microvascular stunning, embolization, and damage. Whether FFR remains a useful index of epicardial flow in the setting of recent myocardial infarction is not established. Cardiac risk factors, serum troponin I, angiographic minimal lumen diameter (MLD), percent diameter stenosis (DS), lesion length, vessel reference diameter, hyperemic central aortic pressure, hyperemic pressure distal to stenosis, and FFR were compared in 43 vessels subtending recent AMI beds to 25 control vessels, matched by lesion length and MLD, in patients without AMI. There were no differences in DS, MLD, lesion length, or reference diameter between AMI and non-AMI groups. Patients with AMI had mean troponin I levels of 91.8 +/- 162 ng/ml. Left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly lower in patients with than without AMI (55 +/- 9% vs 62 +/- 8%, p <0.05). There were no significant differences in hyperemic central aortic pressure (92 +/- 13 vs 99 +/- 15 mm Hg, p = NS), hyperemic pressure distal to the stenosis (62 +/- 17 vs 66 +/- 19 mm Hg, p = NS), or FFR (0.67 +/- 17 vs 0.68 +/- 17, p = NS) between recent AMI and non-AMI control patients. There was a significant correlation between DS and FFR for both patients with (p <0.001) and without (p = 0.003) infarctions. Thus, FFR and the relation between FFR and DS of lesions subtending AMI was not significantly different from FFR of angiographically matched lesions in patients without AMI.

Comparison between visual assessment and quantitative angiography versus fractional flow reserve for native coronary narrowings of moderate severity.

We tested the hypothesis that experienced interventional cardiologists can identify patients with fractional flow reserve (FFR) <0.75 either by visual assessment of the angiogram or by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). Estimation of the significance of moderate lesions is difficult. FFR can determine the physiologic significance of a stenosis. Data comparing visual assessment and QCA of moderate lesions with FFR are limited. FFR was measured in 83 moderate lesions defined as having a 40% to 70% stenosis by visual inspection. An FFR <0.75 was considered "significant." Lesions were visually assessed by 3 experienced interventional cardiologists and their significance estimated. QCA was performed. Both analyses were compared with FFR. FFR averaged 0.82 +/- 0.11 and was <0.75 in 15 of 83 lesions (18%). The reviewers' classification was concordant with the FFR in about half the lesions. Concordance between reviewers was poor (Spearman's rho = 0.36). Visual assessment resulted in good sensitivity (80%) and negative predictive value (91%), but poor specificity (47%) and positive predictive value (25%) compared with FFR. By QCA, no patient with stenosis <60% or minimal luminal diameter >1.4 mm had FFR <0.75. QCA did not discriminate the significance of lesions outside of these parameters. Thus, neither visual assessment of an angiogram by experienced interventional cardiologists nor QCA can accurately predict the significance of most moderate narrowings.