Influence of hydrostatic pressure on intracoronary indices of stenosis severity in vivo.

BACKGROUND: An influence of hydrostatic pressure on intracoronary indices of stenosis severity in vitro was recently reported. We sought to analyze the influence of hydrostatic pressure, caused by the height difference between the distal and proximal pressure sensor after guidewire positioning in the interrogated vessel, on intracoronary pressure measurements in vivo. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 30 coronary stenoses, intracoronary pressure measurements were performed in supine, left, and right lateral patient position. Height differences between the distal and proximal pressure sensor were measured by blinded observers. Measurement results of the position with the highest ("high") and lowest height difference ("low") were compared. In group "high", all measured indices were higher: mean difference of fractional flow reserve (FFR) 0.045 (SD 0.033, 95% CI 0.033-0.057, p < 0.0001), of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) 0.043 (SD 0.04, 95% CI 0.029-0.057, p < 0.0001), and of resting Pd/Pa 0.037 (SD 0.034, 95% CI 0.025-0.049, p < 0.0001). Addition of the physically expectable hydrostatic pressure to the distal coronary pressures of the control group abolished the differences: corrected ∆FFR - 0.006 (SD 0.027, 95% CI - 0.015 to 0.004, p = 0.26), corrected ∆Pd/Pa - 0.008 (SD 0.03, 95% CI - 0.019 to 0.003, p = 0.18). Adjustment for hydrostatic pressure of FFR values in a standard supine position increased all values in anterior vessels and decreased all values in posterior vessels. The mean changes of FFR due to adjustment were: LAD - 0.048 (SD 0.016), CX 0.02 (SD 0.009), RCA 0.02 (SD 0.021). Dichotomous severity classification changed in 12.9% of stenoses. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates a relevant influence of hydrostatic pressure on intracoronary indices of stenosis severity in vivo, caused by the height differences between distal and proximal pressure sensor.

Differences between automatically detected and steady-state fractional flow reserve.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) has become a standard diagnostic tool in the catheterization laboratory. FFR evaluation studies were based on pressure recordings during steady-state maximum hyperemia. Commercially available computer systems detect the lowest Pd/Pa ratio automatically, which might not always be measured during steady-state hyperemia. We sought to compare the automatically detected FFR and true steady-state FFR. METHODS AND RESULTS: Pressure measurement traces of 105 coronary lesions from 77 patients with intermediate coronary lesions or multivessel disease were reviewed. In all patients, hyperemia had been achieved by intravenous adenosine administration using a dosage of 140 µg/kg/min. In 42 lesions (40%) automatically detected FFR was lower than true steady-state FFR. Mean bias was 0.009 (standard deviation 0.015, limits of agreement -0.02, 0.037). In 4 lesions (3.8%) both methods lead to different treatment recommendations, in all 4 cases instantaneous wave-free ratio confirmed steady-state FFR. CONCLUSIONS: Automatically detected FFR was slightly lower than steady-state FFR in more than one-third of cases. Consequently, interpretation of automatically detected FFR values closely below the cutoff value requires special attention.