Increased left atrial volume index is associated with more cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome: HIJ-PROPER study findings.

AIM: To investigate the association between the left atrial volume index (LAVI) and the incidence of cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who did not have atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: In this sub-analysis of the HIJ-PROPER study, 226 ACS patients who did not have a history of AF were enrolled. Participants were divided into two groups according to the LAVI cut-off level calculated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis to predict the primary endpoint, and cardiovascular events were compared between groups. The primary endpoint was the first occurrence of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: ROC curve analysis for the occurrence of composite of cardiovascular events indicated a LAVI cut-off point of 34 mL/m2 . Based on this, 131 patients (58.0%) were in the LAVI < 34 mL/m2 group and 95 (42.0%) were in the LAVI ≥ 34 mL/m2 group. Over a median follow-up period of 4.0 years [interquartile range: 3.2, 5.1], cardiovascular events were noted in 7 and 15 patients in the LAVI < 34 mL/m2 and LAVI ≥ 34 mL/m2 groups, corresponding to an incidence rate of 5.3% and 15.8%, respectively. Patients with a LAVI value ≥ 34 mL/m2 had a significantly higher risk of cardiovascular events than those with a LAVI value < 34 mL/m2 (hazard ratio: 2.93; 95% confidence interval: 1.19-7.22; P = .014). The tendency was similar after adjusting for several confounders (P = .025). CONCLUSION: In ACS patients without AF, elevated LAVI was associated with increased cardiovascular events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: International standard randomized controlled trial (URL: https://www.umin.ac.jp; UMIN000002742).

Evaluation of the cut-off value for the instantaneous wave-free ratio of patients with aortic valve stenosis.

The aim of this study was to examine the clinical value of iFR for AS patients. Functional evaluation of coronary stenosis in patients with aortic valve stenosis (AS) is challenging because the stress-induced test is often thought to be a contraindication. AS patients have a unique coronary flow pattern dependent on the diastolic phase. The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is a vasodilator-free, invasive pressure wire index of the functional severity of coronary stenosis and is calculated under resting conditions. And iFR calculated during a specific period of diastole may have the potential benefit to assess the functional severity of coronary stenosis in AS patients. We examined 158 consecutive patients (217 stenoses) whose iFR and fractional flow reserve (FFR) were measured simultaneously. Among the 158 patients, AS was observed in 13 (8.2%). The iFR showed good correlation with FFR in AS patients. The best cut-off value of iFR for the receiver-operator curve analysis to predict FFR of 0.8 was 0.9 for non-AS patients. However, it was 0.73 for AS patients. The present study demonstrated good correlation between iFR and FFR for AS patients. Vasodilator-free assessment using iFR may provide potential benefits when evaluating coronary stenosis in patients with AS. In AS patients, the best cut-off of iFR value predicting FFR value of 0.8 was lower than 0.9 that is the standard predictive value of iFR.

The impact of tissue Doppler index E/e' ratio on instantaneous wave-free ratio.

BACKGROUND: The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is a vasodilator-free, invasive pressure wire index of the functional severity of coronary stenosis and is calculated under resting conditions. In a recent study, iFR was found to be more closely linked to coronary flow reserve (CFR) than fractional flow reserve (FFR). E/e' is a surrogate marker of left ventricular (LV) filling pressure and LV diastolic dysfunction. Coronary resting flow was found to be increased in patients with elevated E/e', and higher coronary resting flow was associated with lower CFR. Higher baseline coronary flow induces a greater loss of translesional pressure and may affect iFR. However, no reports have examined the impact of E/e' on iFR. The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between iFR and E/e' compared with FFR. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively examined 103 consecutive patients (142 with stenosis) whose iFR, FFR, and E/e' were measured simultaneously. The mean age, LV mass index, and systolic blood pressure of patients with elevated E/e' were higher than those of patients with normal E/e'. Although no significant differences were observed in mean FFR values and % diameter stenosis, the mean iFR value in patients with elevated E/e' was significantly lower than that in patients with normal E/e'. The iFR was negatively correlated with E/e', while there was no correlation between FFR and E/e'. Multivariate analysis showed that E/e' and % diameter stenosis were independent determinants of iFR. CONCLUSION: E/e' ratio affects iFR values. Our results suggest that FFR mainly reflects the functional severity of the epicardial stenosis whereas iFR could potentially be influenced by not only epicardial stenosis but also other factors related to LV filling pressure or LV diastolic dysfunction. Further research is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms that influence the evaluation of iFR in patients with elevated E/e'.