Impact of coronary hyperemia on collateral flow correction of coronary microvascular resistance indices.

Recently, a novel method to estimate wedge pressure (Pw)-corrected minimal microvascular resistance (MR) was introduced. However, this method has not been validated since, and there are some theoretical concerns regarding the impact of different physiological conditions on the derivation of Pw measurements. This study sought to validate the recently introduced method to estimate Pw-corrected MR in a Doppler-derived study population and to evaluate the impact of different physiological conditions on the Pw measurements and the derivation of Pw-corrected MR. The method to derive "estimated" hyperemic microvascular resistance (HMR) without the need for Pw measurements was validated by estimating the coronary fractional flow reserve (FFRcor) from myocardial fractional flow reserve (FFRmyo) in a Doppler-derived study population (N = 53). From these patients, 24 had hyperemic Pw measurements available for the evaluation of hyperemic conditions on the derivation of Pw and its effect on the derivation of both "true" (with measured Pw) and "estimated" Pw-corrected HMR. Nonhyperemic Pw differed significantly from Pw measured in hyperemic conditions (26 ± 14 vs. 35 ± 14 mmHg, respectively, P < 0.005). Nevertheless, there was a strong linear relationship between FFRcor and FFRmyo in nonhyperemic conditions (R2 = 0.91, P < 0.005), as well as in hyperemic conditions (R2 = 0.87, P < 0.005). There was a strong linear relationship between "true" HMR and "estimated" HMR using either nonhyperemic (R2 = 0.86, P < 0.005) or hyperemic conditions (R2 = 0.85, P < 0.005) for correction. In contrast to a modest agreement between nonhyperemic Pw-corrected HMR and apparent HMR (R2 = 0.67, P < 0.005), hyperemic Pw-corrected HMR showed a strong agreement with apparent HMR (R2 = 0.88, P < 0.005). We validated the calculation method for Pw-corrected MR in a Doppler velocity-derived population. In addition, we found a significant impact of hyperemic conditions on the measurement of Pw and the derivation of Pw-corrected HMR.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The following are what is known: 1) wedge-pressure correction is often considered for the derivation of indices of minimal microvascular resistance, and 2) the Yong method for calculating wedge pressure-corrected index of microvascular resistance (IMR) without balloon inflation has never been validated in a Doppler-derived population and has not been tested under different physiological conditions. This study 1) adds validation for the Yong method for calculated wedge-pressure correction in a Doppler-derived study population and 2) shows significant influence of the physiological conditions on the derivation of coronary wedge pressure.

Validation of resting full-cycle ratio and diastolic pressure ratio with [15O]H2O positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion.

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) are invasive techniques used to evaluate the hemodynamic significance of coronary artery stenosis. These methods have been validated through perfusion imaging and clinical trials. New invasive pressure ratios that do not require hyperemia have recently emerged, and it is essential to confirm their diagnostic efficacy. The aim of this study was to validate the resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) and the diastolic pressure ratio (dPR), against [15O]H2O positron emission tomography (PET) imaging. A total of 129 symptomatic patients with an intermediate risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) were included. All patients underwent cardiac [15O]H2O PET with quantitative assessment of resting and hyperemic myocardial perfusion. Within a 2 week period, coronary angiography was performed. Intracoronary pressure measurements were obtained in 320 vessels and RFR, dPR, and FFR were computed. PET derived regional hyperemic myocardial blood flow (hMBF) and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) served as reference standards. In coronary arteries with stenoses (43%, 136 of 320), the overall diagnostic accuracies of RFR, dPR, and FFR did not differ when PET hyperemic MBF < 2.3 ml min-1 (69.9%, 70.6%, and 77.1%, respectively) and PET MPR < 2.5 (70.6%, 71.3%, and 66.9%, respectively) were considered as the reference for myocardial ischemia. Non-significant differences between the areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were found between the different indices. Furthermore, the integration of FFR with RFR (or dPR) does not enhance the diagnostic information already achieved by FFR in the characterization of ischemia via PET perfusion. In conclusion, the novel non-hyperemic pressure ratios, RFR and dPR, have a diagnostic performance comparable to FFR in assessing regional myocardial ischemia. These findings suggest that RFR and dPR may be considered as an FFR alternative for invasively guiding revascularization treatment in symptomatic patients with CAD.

Microvascular resistance reserve: diagnostic and prognostic performance in the ILIAS registry.

AIMS: The microvascular resistance reserve (MRR) was introduced as a means to characterize the vasodilator reserve capacity of the coronary microcirculation while accounting for the influence of concomitant epicardial disease and the impact of administration of potent vasodilators on aortic pressure. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic performance of MRR. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1481 patients with stable symptoms and a clinical indication for coronary angiography were included from the global ILIAS Registry. MRR was derived as a function of the coronary flow reserve (CFR) divided by the fractional flow reserve (FFR) and corrected for driving pressure. The median MRR was 2.97 [Q1-Q3: 2.32-3.86] and the overall relationship between MRR and CFR was good [correlation coefficient (Rs) = 0.88, P < 0.005]. The difference between CFR and MRR increased with decreasing FFR [coefficient of determination (R2) = 0.34; Coef.-2.88, 95% confidence interval (CI): -3.05--2.73; P < 0.005]. MRR was independently associated with major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 5-year follow-up [hazard ratio (HR) 0.78; 95% CI 0.63-0.95; P = 0.024] and with target vessel failure (TVF) at 5-year follow-up (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.76-0.97; P = 0.047). The optimal cut-off value of MRR was 3.0. Based on this cut-off value, only abnormal MRR was significantly associated with MACE and TVF at 5-year follow-up in vessels with functionally significant epicardial disease (FFR <0.75). CONCLUSION: MRR seems a robust indicator of the microvascular vasodilator reserve capacity. Moreover, in line with its theoretical background, this study suggests a diagnostic advantage of MRR over other indices of vasodilatory capacity in patients with hemodynamically significant epicardial coronary artery disease.

Less bleeding by omitting aspirin in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients: Rationale and design of the LEGACY study.

BACKGROUND: Early aspirin withdrawal, also known as P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy, following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) can reduce bleeding without a trade-off in efficacy. Still the average daily bleeding risk is highest during the first months and it remains unclear if aspirin can be omitted immediately following PCI. METHODS: The LEGACY study is an open-label, multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of immediate P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy versus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 12 months in 3,090 patients. Patients are randomized immediately following successful PCI for NSTE-ACS to 75-100 mg aspirin once daily versus no aspirin. The primary hypothesis is that immediately omitting aspirin is superior to DAPT with respect to major or minor bleeding defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, while maintaining noninferiority for the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke compared to DAPT. CONCLUSIONS: The LEGACY study is the first randomized study that is specifically designed to evaluate the impact of immediately omitting aspirin, and thus treating patients with P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy, as compared to DAPT for 12 months on bleeding and ischemic events within 12 months following PCI for NSTE-ACS.

Invasive and non-invasive assessment of ischaemia in chronic coronary syndromes: translating pathophysiology to clinical practice.

Intracoronary physiology testing has emerged as a valuable diagnostic approach in the management of patients with chronic coronary syndrome, circumventing limitations like inferring coronary function from anatomical assessment and low spatial resolution associated with angiography or non-invasive tests. The value of hyperaemic translesional pressure ratios to estimate the functional relevance of coronary stenoses is supported by a wealth of prognostic data. The continuing drive to further simplify this approach led to the development of non-hyperaemic pressure-based indices. Recent attention has focussed on estimating physiology without even measuring coronary pressure. However, the reduction in procedural time and ease of accessibility afforded by these simplifications needs to be counterbalanced against the increasing burden of physiological assumptions, which may impact on the ability to reliably identify an ischaemic substrate, the ultimate goal during catheter laboratory assessment. In that regard, measurement of both coronary pressure and flow enables comprehensive physiological evaluation of both epicardial and microcirculatory components of the vasculature, although widespread adoption has been hampered by perceived technical complexity and, in general, an underappreciation of the role of the microvasculature. In parallel, entirely non-invasive tools have matured, with the utilization of various techniques including computational fluid dynamic and quantitative perfusion analysis. This review article appraises the strengths and limitations for each test in investigating myocardial ischaemia and discusses a comprehensive algorithm that could be used to obtain a diagnosis in all patients with angina scheduled for coronary angiography, including those who are not found to have obstructive epicardial coronary disease.

Respiration-related variations in Pd/Pa ratio and fractional flow reserve in resting conditions and during intravenous adenosine administration.

AIMS: We evaluated the occurrence and physiology of respiration-related beat-to-beat variations in resting Pd/Pa and FFR during intravenous adenosine administration, and its impact on clinical decision-making. METHODS AND RESULTS: Coronary pressure tracings in rest and at plateau hyperemia were analyzed in a total of 39 stenosis from 37 patients, and respiratory rate was calculated with ECG-derived respiration (EDR) in 26 stenoses from 26 patients. Beat-to-beat variations in FFR occurred in a cyclical fashion and were strongly correlated with respiratory rate (R2  = 0.757, p < 0.001). There was no correlation between respiratory rate and variations in resting Pd/Pa. When single-beat averages were used to calculate FFR, mean ΔFFR was 0.04 ± 0.02. With averaging of FFR over three or five cardiac cycles, mean ΔFFR decreased to 0.02 ± 0.02, and 0.01 ± 0.01, respectively. Using a FFR ≤ 0.80 threshold, stenosis classification changed in 20.5% (8/39), 12.8% (5/39) and 5.1% (2/39) for single-beat, three-beat and five-beat averaged FFR. The impact of respiration was more pronounced in patients with pulmonary disease (ΔFFR 0.05 ± 0.02 vs 0.03 ± 0.02, p = 0.021). CONCLUSION: Beat-to-beat variations in FFR during plateau hyperemia related to respiration are common, of clinically relevant magnitude, and frequently lead FFR to cross treatment thresholds. A five-beat averaged FFR, overcomes clinically relevant impact of FFR variation.

Residual Quantitative Flow Ratio to Estimate Post-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Fractional Flow Reserve.

OBJECTIVES: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) computes fractional flow reserve (FFR) based on invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Residual QFR estimates post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) FFR. This study sought to assess the relationship of residual QFR with post-PCI FFR. METHODS: Residual QFR analysis, using pre-PCI ICA, was attempted in 159 vessels with post-PCI FFR. QFR lesion location was matched with the PCI location to simulate the performed intervention and allow computation of residual QFR. A post-PCI FFR < 0.90 was used to define a suboptimal PCI result. RESULTS: Residual QFR computation was successful in 128 (81%) vessels. Median residual QFR was higher than post-PCI FFR (0.96 Q1-Q3: 0.91-0.99 vs. 0.91 Q1-Q3: 0.86-0.96, p < 0.001). A significant correlation and agreement were observed between residual QFR and post-PCI FFR (R = 0.56 and intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.47, p < 0.001 for both). Following PCI, an FFR < 0.90 was observed in 54 (42%) vessels. Specificity, positive predictive value, sensitivity, and negative predictive value of residual QFR for assessment of the PCI result were 96% (95% confidence interval (CI): 87-99%), 89% (95% CI: 72-96%), 44% (95% CI: 31-59%), and 70% (95% CI: 65-75%), respectively. Residual QFR had an accuracy of 74% (95% CI: 66-82%) and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.71-0.86). CONCLUSIONS: A significant correlation and agreement between residual QFR and post-PCI FFR were observed. Residual QFR ≥ 0.90 did not necessarily commensurate with a satisfactory PCI (post-PCI FFR ≥ 0.90). In contrast, residual QFR exhibited a high specificity for prediction of a suboptimal PCI result.

Distal Evaluation of Functional performance with Intravascular sensors to assess the Narrowing Effect-combined pressure and Doppler FLOW velocity measurements (DEFINE-FLOW) trial: Rationale and trial design.

BACKGROUND: It remains uncertain if invasive coronary physiology beyond fractional flow reserve (FFR) can refine lesion selection for revascularization or provide additional prognostic value. Coronary flow reserve (CFR) equals the ratio of hyperemic to baseline flow velocity and has a wealth of invasive and noninvasive data supporting its validity. Because of fundamental physiologic relationships, binary classification of FFR and CFR disagrees in approximately 30%-40% of cases. Optimal management of these discordant cases requires further study. AIM: The aim of the study was to determine the prognostic value of combined FFR and CFR measurements to predict the 24-month rate of major adverse cardiac events. Secondary end points include repeatability of FFR and CFR, angina burden, and the percentage of successful FFR/CFR measurements which will not be excluded by the core laboratory. METHODS: This prospective, nonblinded, nonrandomized, and multicenter study enrolled 455 subjects from 12 sites in Europe and Japan. Patients underwent physiologic lesion assessment using the 0.014" Philips Volcano ComboWire XT that provides simultaneous pressure and Doppler velocity sensors. Intermediate coronary lesions received only medical treatment unless both FFR (≤0.8) and CFR (<2.0) were below thresholds. The primary outcome is a 24-month composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, and revascularization. CONCLUSION: The DEFINE-FLOW study will determine the prognostic value of invasive CFR assessment when measured simultaneously with FFR, with a special emphasis on discordant classifications. Our hypothesis is that lesions with an intact CFR ≥ 2.0 but reduced FFR ≤ 0.8 will have a 2-year outcome with medical treatment similar to lesions with FFR> 0.80 and CFR ≥ 2.0. Enrollment has been completed, and final follow-up will occur in November 2019.

Integrated Noninvasive Physiological Assessment of Coronary Circulatory Function and Impact on Cardiovascular Mortality in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: It is suggested that the integration of maximal myocardial blood flow (MBF) and coronary flow reserve (CFR), termed coronary flow capacity, allows for comprehensive evaluation of patients with known or suspected stable coronary artery disease. Because management decisions are predicated on clinical risk, we sought to determine the independent and integrated value of maximal MBF and CFR for predicting cardiovascular death. METHODS: MBF and CFR were quantified in 4029 consecutive patients (median age 66 years, 50.5% women) referred for rest/stress myocardial perfusion positron emission tomography scans from January 2006 to December 2013. The primary outcome was cardiovascular mortality. Maximal MBF <1.8 mL·g-1·min-1 and CFR<2 were considered impaired. Four patient groups were identified based on the concordant or discordant impairment of maximal MBF or CFR. Association of maximal MBF and CFR with cardiovascular death was assessed using Cox and Poisson regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 392 (9.7%) cardiovascular deaths occurred over a median follow-up of 5.6 years. CFR was a stronger predictor of cardiovascular mortality than maximal MBF beyond traditional cardiovascular risk factors, left ventricular ejection fraction, myocardial scar and ischemia, rate-pressure product, type of radiotracer or stress agent used, and revascularization after scan (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-2.31; P<0.001 per unit decrease in CFR after adjustment for maximal MBF and clinical covariates; and adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.84-1.27; P=0.8 per unit decrease in maximal MBF after adjustment for CFR and clinical covariates). In univariable analyses, patients with concordant impairment of CFR and maximal MBF had high cardiovascular mortality of 3.3% (95% CI, 2.9-3.7) per year. Patients with impaired CFR but preserved maximal MBF had an intermediate cardiovascular mortality of 1.7% (95% CI, 1.3-2.1) per year. These patients were predominantly women (70%). Patients with preserved CFR but impaired maximal MBF had low cardiovascular mortality of 0.9% (95% CI, 0.6-1.6) per year. Patients with concordantly preserved CFR and maximal MBF had the lowest cardiovascular mortality of 0.4% (95 CI, 0.3-0.6) per year. In multivariable analysis, the cardiovascular mortality risk gradient across the 4 concordant or discordant categories was independently driven by impaired CFR irrespective of impairment in maximal MBF. CONCLUSIONS: CFR is a stronger predictor of cardiovascular mortality than maximal MBF. Concordant and discordant categories based on integrating CFR and maximal MBF identify unique prognostic phenotypes of patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease.

Fractional Flow Reserve or Coronary Flow Reserve for the Assessment of Myocardial Perfusion : Implications of FFR as an Imperfect Reference Standard for Myocardial Ischemia.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Accumulating evidence exists for the value of coronary physiology for clinical decision-making in ischemic heart disease (IHD). The most frequently used pressure-derived index to assess stenosis severity, the fractional flow reserve (FFR), has long been considered the gold standard for this purpose, despite the fact that the FFR assesses solely epicardial stenosis severity and aims to estimate coronary flow impairment in the coronary circulation. The coronary flow reserve (CFR) directly assesses coronary blood flow in the coronary circulation, including both the epicardial coronary artery and the coronary microvasculature, but is nowadays less established than FFR. It is now recognized that both tools may provide insight into the pathophysiological substrate of ischemic heart disease, and that particularly combined FFR and CFR measurements provide a comprehensive insight into the multilevel involvement of IHD. This review discusses the diagnostic and prognostic characteristics, as well as future implications of combined assessment of FFR and CFR pressure and flow measurements as parameters for inducible ischemia. RECENT FINDINGS: FFR and CFR disagree in up to 40% of all cases, giving rise to fundamental questions regarding the role of FFR in contemporary ischemic heart disease management, and implying a renewed approach in clinical management of these patients using combined coronary pressure and flow measurement to allow appropriate identification of patients at risk for cardiovascular events. This review emphasizes the value of comprehensive coronary physiology measurements in assessing the pathophysiological substrate of IHD, and the importance of acknowledging the broad spectrum of epicardial and microcirculatory involvement in IHD. Increasing interest and large clinical trials are expected to further strengthen the potential of advanced coronary physiology in interventional cardiology, consequently inducing reconsideration of current clinical guidelines.

Coronary pressure and flow relationships in humans: phasic analysis of normal and pathological vessels and the implications for stenosis assessment: a report from the Iberian-Dutch-English (IDEAL) collaborators.

BACKGROUND: Our understanding of human coronary physiological behaviour is derived from animal models. We sought to describe physiological behaviour across a large collection of invasive pressure and flow velocity measurements, to provide a better understanding of the relationships between these physiological parameters and to evaluate the rationale for resting stenosis assessment. METHODS AND RESULTS: Five hundred and sixty-seven simultaneous intracoronary pressure and flow velocity assessments from 301 patients were analysed for coronary flow velocity, trans-stenotic pressure gradient (TG), and microvascular resistance (MVR). Measurements were made during baseline and hyperaemic conditions. The whole cardiac cycle and the diastolic wave-free period were assessed. Stenoses were assessed according to fractional flow reserve (FFR) and quantitative coronary angiography DS%. With progressive worsening of stenoses, from unobstructed angiographic normal vessels to those with FFR ≤ 0.50, hyperaemic flow falls significantly from 45 to 19 cm/s, Ptrend < 0.001 in a curvilinear pattern. Resting flow was unaffected by stenosis severity and was consistent across all strata of stenosis (Ptrend > 0.05 for all). Trans-stenotic pressure gradient rose with stenosis severity for both rest and hyperaemic measures (Ptrend < 0.001 for both). Microvascular resistance declines with stenosis severity under resting conditions (Ptrend < 0.001), but was unchanged at hyperaemia (2.3 ± 1.1 mmHg/cm/s; Ptrend = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: With progressive stenosis severity, TG rises. However, while hyperaemic flow falls significantly, resting coronary flow is maintained by compensatory reduction of MVR, demonstrating coronary auto-regulation. These data support the translation of coronary physiological concepts derived from animals to patients with coronary artery disease and furthermore, suggest that resting pressure indices can be used to detect the haemodynamic significance of coronary artery stenoses.

Diagnostic cutoff for pressure drop coefficient in relation to fractional flow reserve and coronary flow reserve: A patient-level analysis.

OBJECTIVES AND BACKGROUND: Functional assessment of intermediate coronary stenosis during cardiac catheterization is conducted using diagnostic parameters like fractional flow reserve (FFR), coronary flow reserve (CFR), hyperemic stenosis resistance index (HSR), and hyperemic microvascular resistance (HMR). CDP (ratio of pressure drop across a stenosis to distal dynamic pressure), a nondimensional index derived from fundamental fluid dynamic principles, based on a combination of intracoronary pressure, and flow measurements may improve the functional assessment of coronary lesion severity. METHODS: Patient-level data pertaining to 350 intracoronary pressure and flow measurements across coronary stenoses was assessed to evaluate CFR, FFR, HSR, HMR, and CDP. CDP was calculated as (ΔP)/(0.5 × ρ × APV(2)). The density of blood (ρ) was assumed to be 1.05 g/cm(3). The correlation of current diagnostic parameters (CFR, FFR, HSR, and HMR) with CDP was evaluated. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to identify the optimal cut-off point of CDP, corresponding to the clinically used cut-off values (FFR = 0.80 and CFR = 2.0). RESULTS: CDP correlated significantly with FFR (r = 0.81, P < 0.05) and had significant diagnostic efficiency (ROC-area under curve of 86%), specificity (72%) and sensitivity (85%) at FFR < 0.8. The corresponding cut-off value for CDP to detect FFR < 0.8 was at CDP>25.4. CDP also correlated significantly (r = 0.98, P < 0.05) with epicardial-specific parameter, HSR. CONCLUSIONS: CDP, a functional parameter based on both intracoronary pressure and flow measurements, has close agreement (area under ROC curve = 86%) with FFR, the frequently used method of evaluating stenosis severity.

Fundamentals in clinical coronary physiology: why coronary flow is more important than coronary pressure.

Wide attention for the appropriateness of coronary stenting in stable ischaemic heart disease (IHD) has increased interest in coronary physiology to guide decision making. For many, coronary physiology equals the measurement of coronary pressure to calculate the fractional flow reserve (FFR). While accumulating evidence supports the contention that FFR-guided revascularization is superior to revascularization based on coronary angiography, it is frequently overlooked that FFR is a coronary pressure-derived estimate of coronary flow impairment. It is not the same as the direct measures of coronary flow from which it was derived, and which are critical determinants of myocardial ischaemia. This review describes why coronary flow is physiologically and clinically more important than coronary pressure, details the resulting limitations and clinical consequences of FFR-guided clinical decision making, describes the scientific consequences of using FFR as a gold standard reference test, and discusses the potential of coronary flow to improve risk stratification and decision making in IHD.

Real-time use of instantaneous wave-free ratio: results of the ADVISE in-practice: an international, multicenter evaluation of instantaneous wave-free ratio in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the first experience of real-time instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) measurement by clinicians. BACKGROUND: The iFR is a new vasodilator-free index of coronary stenosis severity, calculated as a trans-lesion pressure ratio during a specific period of baseline diastole, when distal resistance is lowest and stable. Because all previous studies have calculated iFR offline, the feasibility of real-time iFR measurement has never been assessed. METHODS: Three hundred ninety-two stenoses with angiographically intermediate stenoses were included in this multicenter international analysis. Instantaneous wave-free ratio and fractional flow reserve (FFR) were performed in real time on commercially available consoles. The classification agreement of coronary stenoses between iFR and FFR was calculated. RESULTS: Instantaneous wave-free ratio and FFR maintain a close level of diagnostic agreement when both are measured by clinicians in real time (for a clinical 0.80 FFR cutoff: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [ROC(AUC)] 0.87, classification match 80%, and optimal iFR cutoff 0.90; for a ischemic 0.75 FFR cutoff: iFR ROC(AUC) 0.90, classification match 88%, and optimal iFR cutoff 0.85; if the FFR 0.75-0.80 gray zone is accounted for: ROC(AUC) 0.93, classification match 92%). When iFR and FFR are evaluated together in a hybrid decision-making strategy, 61% of the population is spared from vasodilator while maintaining a 94% overall agreement with FFR lesion classification. CONCLUSION: When measured in real time, iFR maintains the close relationship to FFR reported in offline studies. These findings confirm the feasibility and reliability of real-time iFR calculation by clinicians.

Facing the complexity of ischaemic heart disease with intracoronary pressure and flow measurements: beyond fractional flow reserve interrogation of the coronary circulation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this study is to summarize cumulative evidence suggesting that the combination of fractional flow reserve (FFR), coronary flow reserve (CFR) and the index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) might provide a more comprehensive invasive assessment of ischaemic heart disease (IHD). RECENT FINDINGS: Myocardial flow impairment in IHD results from both obstructive and nonobstructive causes. However, its diagnosis is primarily stenosis-centred. Although FFR provides valuable information on obstructive disease, its theoretical framework largely neglects the importance of nonobstructive concomitant involvement. Substantial evidence suggests, however, that nonobstructive IHD has important prognostic implications, and CFR and IMR are readily available tools for its concomitant diagnosis. Furthermore, CFR and IMR have independently been shown to improve IHD risk stratification. Further studies should address whether this more comprehensive IHD diagnosis, derived from the combination of FFR, CFR and IMR, may improve prognostic risk stratification and guide therapeutic strategies aiming for both obstructive and nonobstructive IHD involvement. SUMMARY: FFR, CFR and IMR have independently been shown to improve IHD risk stratification. Their combined use is feasible and appealing, and might lead to a more comprehensive invasive assessment of IHD.

ANOCA patients with and without coronary vasomotor dysfunction present with limited electrocardiographic remodeling.

Background: Coronary vasomotor dysfunction (CVDys) comprises coronary vasospasm (CVS) and/or coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) and is highly prevalent in patients with angina and non-obstructive coronary artery disease (ANOCA). Invasive coronary function testing (CFT) to diagnose CVDys is becoming more common, enabling pathophysiologic research of CVDys. This study aims to explore the electrophysiological characteristics of ANOCA patients with CVDys. Methods: We collected pre-procedural 12-lead electrocardiograms of ANOCA patients with CVS (n = 35), CMD (n = 24), CVS/CMD (n = 26) and patients without CVDys (CFT-, n = 23) who participated in the NL-CFT registry and underwent CFT. Heart axis and conduction times were compared between patients with CVS, CMD or CVS/CMD and patients without CVDys. Results: Heart axis, heart rate, PQ interval and QRS duration were comparable between the groups. A small prolongation of the QT-interval corrected with Bazett (QTcB) and Fridericia (QTcF) was observed in patients with CVDys compared to patients without CVDys (CVS vs CFT-: QTcB = 422 ± 18 vs 414 ± 18 ms (p = 0.14), QTcF = 410 ± 14 vs 406 ± 12 ms (p = 0.21); CMD vs CFT-: QTcB = 426 ± 17 vs 414 ± 18 ms (p = 0.03), QTcF = 413 ± 11 vs 406 ± 12 ms (p = 0.04); CVS/CMD vs CFT-: QTcB = 424 ± 17 vs 414 ± 18 ms (p = 0.05), QTcF = 414 ± 14 vs 406 ± 12 ms (p = 0.04)). Conclusions: Pre-procedural 12-lead electrocardiograms were comparable between patients with and without CVDys undergoing CFT except for a slightly longer QTc interval in patients with CVDys compared to patients without CVDys, suggesting limited cardiac remodeling in patients with CVDys.

Comparison of the Diagnostic Yield of Intracoronary Acetylcholine Infusion and Acetylcholine Bolus Injection Protocols During Invasive Coronary Function Testing.

Coronary endothelial dysfunction (CED) and coronary artery spasm (CAS) are causes of angina with no obstructive coronary arteries in patients. Both can be diagnosed by invasive coronary function testing (ICFT) using acetylcholine (ACh). This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield of a 3-minute ACh infusion as compared with a 1-minute ACh bolus injection protocol in testing CED and CAS. We evaluated 220 consecutive patients with angina and no obstructive coronary arteries who underwent ICFT using continuous Doppler flow measurements. Per protocol, 110 patients were tested using 3-minute infusion, and thereafter 110 patients using 1-minute bolus injections, because of a protocol change. CED was defined as a <50% increase in coronary blood flow or any epicardial vasoconstriction in reaction to low-dose ACh and CAS according to the Coronary Vasomotor Disorders International Study Group (COVADIS) criteria, both with and without T-wave abnormalities, in reaction to high dose ACh. The prevalence of CED was equal in both protocols (78% vs 79%, p = 0.869). Regarding the endotypes of CAS according to COVADIS, the equivocal endotype was diagnosed less often in the 3 vs 1-minute protocol (24% vs 44%, p = 0.004). Including T-wave abnormalities in the COVADIS criteria resulted in a similar diagnostic yield of both protocols. Hemodynamic changes from baseline to the low or high ACh doses were comparable between the protocols for each endotype. In conclusion, ICFT using 3-minute infusion or 1-minute bolus injections of ACh showed a similar diagnostic yield of CED. When using the COVADIS criteria, a difference in the equivocal diagnosis was observed. Including T-wave abnormalities as a diagnostic criterion reclassified equivocal test results into CAS and decreased this difference. For clinical practice, we recommend the inclusion of T-wave abnormalities as a diagnostic criterion for CAS and the 1-minute bolus protocol for practicality.