Discordance Between Angiographic Assessment and Fractional Flow Reserve or Intravascular Ultrasound in Intermediate Coronary Lesions: A Post-hoc Analysis of the FLAVOUR Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Angiographic assessment of coronary stenosis severity using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) is often inconsistent with that based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). We investigated the incidence of discrepancies between QCA and FFR or IVUS, and the outcomes of FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies in discordant coronary lesions. METHODS: This study was a post-hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR study. We used a QCA-derived diameter stenosis (DS) of 60% or greater, the highest tertile, to classify coronary lesions as concordant or discordant with FFR or IVUS criteria for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) was defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months. RESULTS: The discordance rate between QCA and FFR or IVUS was 30.2% (n=551). The QCA-FFR discordance rate was numerically lower than the QCA-IVUS discordance rate (28.2% vs. 32.4%, p=0.050). In 200 patients with ≥60% DS, PCI was deferred according to negative FFR (n=141) and negative IVUS (n=59) (15.3% vs. 6.5%, p<0.001). The POCO incidence was comparable between the FFR- and IVUS-guided deferral strategies (5.9% vs. 3.4%, p=0.479). Conversely, 351 patients with DS <60% underwent PCI according to positive FFR (n=118) and positive IVUS (n=233) (12.8% vs. 25.9%, p<0.001). FFR- and IVUS-guided PCI did not differ in the incidence of POCO (9.5% vs. 6.5%, p=0.294). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of QCA-FFR or IVUS discordance was approximately one third for intermediate coronary lesions. FFR- or IVUS-guided strategies for these lesions were comparable with respect to POCO at 24 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02673424.

Individual Lesion-Level Meta-Analysis Comparing Various Doses of Intracoronary Bolus Injection of Adenosine With Intravenous Administration of Adenosine for Fractional Flow Reserve Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous infusion of adenosine is considered standard practice for fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment but is associated with adverse side-effects and is time-consuming. Intracoronary bolus injection of adenosine is better tolerated by patients, cheaper, and less time-consuming. However, current literature remains fragmented and modestly sized regarding the equivalence of intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine. We aim to investigate the relationship between intracoronary adenosine and intravenous adenosine to determine FFR. METHODS: We performed a lesion-level meta-analysis to compare intracoronary adenosine with intravenous adenosine (140 µg/kg per minute) for FFR assessment. The search was conducted in accordance to the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. Lesion-level data were obtained by contacting the respective authors or by digitization of scatterplots using custom-made software. Intracoronary adenosine dose was defined as; low: <40 µg, intermediate: 40 to 99 µg, and high: ≥100 µg. RESULTS: We collected 1972 FFR measurements (1413 lesions) comparing intracoronary with intravenous adenosine from 16 studies. There was a strong correlation (correlation coefficient =0.915; P<0.001) between intracoronary-FFR and intravenous-FFR. Mean FFR was 0.81±0.11 for intracoronary adenosine and 0.81±0.11 for intravenous adenosine (P<0.001). We documented a nonclinically relevant mean difference of 0.006 (limits of agreement: -0.066 to 0.078) between the methods. When stratified by the intracoronary adenosine dose, mean differences between intracoronary and intravenous-FFR amounted to 0.004, 0.011, or 0.000 FFR units for low-dose, intermediate-dose, and high-dose intracoronary adenosine, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The present study documents clinically irrelevant differences in FFR values obtained with intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine. Intracoronary adenosine hence confers a practical and patient-friendly alternative for intravenous adenosine for FFR assessment.

Assessment of the efficacy and tolerability of 2 formulations of atorvastatin in Korean adults with hypercholesterolemia: a multicenter, prospective, open-label, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: A manufacturer of atorvastatin is seeking marketing approval in Korea of a generic product for adult patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a new generic formulation of atorvastatin (test) with those of an original formulation of atorvastatin (reference) to satisfy regulatory requirements for marketing of the generic product in Korea. METHODS: Patients enrolled were aged 20 to 79 years with documented primary hypercholesterolemia who did not respond adequately to therapeutic lifestyle changes and with a LDL-C level >100 mg/dL from a high-risk group of coronary artery disease patients. Eligible patients were randomized to receive 1 of the 2 formulations of atorvastatin 20 mg per day for 8 weeks. The primary end point was the percent change in LDL-C level from baseline to week 8. Secondary end points included the percent change in total cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL-C level, apolipoprotein B:apolipoprotein A-I ratio, LDL:HDL ratio, LDL-C particle size, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein from baseline to week 8, and achievement rate of the LDL-C goal. RESULTS: A total of 298 patients (141 men and 157 women; 149 patients in each group; mean [SD] age, 62.4 [9.2] in the test group vs 60.3 [8.9] years in the reference group) were included. LDL-C levels were significantly decreased from baseline to week 8 in both groups, and there was no significant difference in the percent change in LDL-C level between groups (-44.0% [17.2%] in the test group, -45.4% [16.9%] in the reference group; P = 0.49). The between-group differences in the percent changes in total cholesterol and triglyceride levels were not statistically significant. In addition, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in percent changes in HDL-C, apolipoprotein B:apolipoprotein A-I ratio, LDL-C:HDL-C ratio, LDL-C particle size, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and the achievement rate of the LDL-C goal. Two (1.3%) patients in the reference group (N = 150) experienced treatment-related serious adverse events (AEs): toxic hepatitis and aggravation of chest pain. Common AEs were cough (4.1%), myalgia (2.1%), and indigestion (1.4%) in the test formulation group and cough (5.3%), creatine kinase elevation (2.7%), and edema (0.7%) in the reference formulation group; however, the differences in overall prevalence of AEs between the 2 treatment groups was not significant (P = 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences observed in the efficacy and tolerability between the test and reference formulations of atorvastatin in these Korean adult patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.

Assessment of intraventricular systolic asynchrony in patients with atrial fibrillation using triplane tissue Doppler imaging.

BACKGROUND: Triplane tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) makes it possible to simultaneously obtain three apical view images and to measure the dyssynchrony index (DS) for 12 segments in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We evaluated the feasibility of using triplane TDI to assess intraventricular asynchrony in AF. METHODS: In 50 patients with AF, triplane TDI was used for the analysis of myocardial velocity curves of 12 (six basal and six mid) left ventricular (LV) segments by apical two-, three-, and four-chamber views. Time to peak systolic velocity (Ts) was measured, and DS was calculated as the standard deviation (SD) of Ts over 12 segments. The DS(avg) was defined as the average of DS of eight consecutive cycles. To assess the cyclic variability of DS, the coefficient of variation of DS (CoV(DS)) was calculated as the SD of DS for eight cycles divided by DS(avg) [SD(DS)/DS(avg)]. CoV(RR), representing the variability of RR intervals, was defined as [SD(RR)/RR(avg)]. Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 45% or more were classified as group A, and patients with an LVEF less than 45% as were classified as group B. RESULTS: The mean LVEF was 47% +/- 12%. Group B showed larger LV volume and lower sphericity index compared with group A. Intraobserver and interobserver variability of DS(avg) were 6% and 9%, respectively. More severe dyssynchrony was observed in group B (DS(avg); 23.5 +/- 8.5 ms in group B vs. 17.7 +/- 6.1 ms in group A, P = .008). DS(avg) was not related to RR(avg) or CoV(RR). DS(avg) negatively correlated with ejection fraction (r = -0.404, P = .004) and sphericity index (r = -0.317, P = .025) and showed positive correlation with LV volume. CONCLUSION: Analysis of asynchrony by triplane TDI was feasible in patients with AF. DS(avg) correlated with echocardiographic parameters of systolic function.