Impact of sex on the assessment of the microvascular resistance reserve.

BACKGROUND: The microvascular resistance reserve (MRR) is an innovative index to assess the vasodilatory capacity of the coronary circulation while accounting for the presence of concomitant epicardial disease. The MRR has shown to be a valuable diagnostic and prognostic tool in the general coronary artery disease (CAD) population. However, considering the fundamental aspects of its assessment and the unique hemodynamic characteristics of women, it is crucial to provide additional considerations for evaluating the MRR specifically in women. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic and prognostic applicability of the MRR in women and assess the potential differences across different sexes. METHODS: From the ILIAS Registry, we enrolled all patients with a stable indication for invasive coronary angiography, ensuring complete physiological and follow-up data. We analyzed the diagnostic value by comparing differences between sexes and evaluated the prognostic value of the MRR specifically in women, comparing it to that in men. RESULTS: A total of 1494 patients were included of which 26% were women. The correlation between MRR and CFR was good and similar between women (r = 0.80, p < 0.005) and men (r = 0.81, p < 0.005). The MRR was an independent and important predictor of MACE in both women (HR 0.67, 0.47-0.96, p = 0.027) and men (HR 0.84, 0.74-0.95, p = 0.007). The optimal cut-off value for MRR in women was 2.8 and 3.2 in men. An abnormal MRR similarly predicted MACE at 5-year follow-up in both women and men. CONCLUSION: The MRR seems to be equally applicable in both women and men with stable coronary artery disease.

Impact of hyperaemic stenosis resistance on long-term outcomes of stable angina in the ILIAS Registry.

BACKGROUND: The hyperaemic stenosis resistance (HSR) index was introduced to provide a more comprehensive indicator of the haemodynamic severity of a coronary lesion. HSR combines both the pressure drop across a lesion and the flow through it. As such, HSR overcomes the limitations of the more traditional fractional flow reserve (FFR) or coronary flow reserve (CFR) indices. AIMS: We aimed to identify the diagnostic and prognostic value of HSR and evaluate the clinical implications. METHODS: Patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) and obstructive coronary artery disease were selected from the multicentre ILIAS Registry. For this study, only patients with combined Doppler flow and pressure measurements were included. RESULTS: A total of 853 patients with 1,107 vessels were included. HSR more accurately identified the presence of inducible ischaemia compared to FFR and CFR (area under the curve 0.71 vs 0.66 and 0.62, respectively; p<0.005 for both). An abnormal HSR measurement was an independent and important predictor of target vessel failure at 5-year follow-up (hazard ratio 3.80, 95% confidence interval: 2.12-6.73; p<0.005). In vessels deferred from revascularisation, HSR seems to identify more accurately those vessels that may benefit from revascularisation rather than FFR and/or CFR. CONCLUSIONS: The present study affirms the theoretical advantages of the HSR index for the detection of ischaemia-Âinducing coronary lesions in a large CCS population. (Inclusive Invasive Physiological Assessment in Angina Syndromes Registry [ILIAS Registry], ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04485234).

Prognostic Implications of Individual and Combinations of Resting and Hyperemic Coronary Pressure and Flow Parameters.

Background: Coronary pressure- and flow-derived parameters have prognostic value. Objectives: This study aims to investigate the individual and combined prognostic relevance of pressure and flow parameters reflecting resting and hyperemic conditions. Methods: A total of 1,971 vessels deferred from revascularization after invasive pressure and flow assessment were included from the international multicenter registry. Abnormal resting pressure and flow were defined as distal coronary pressure/aortic pressure ≤0.92 and high resting flow (1/resting mean transit time >2.4 or resting average peak flow >22.7 cm/s), and abnormal hyperemic pressure and flow as fractional flow reserve ≤0.80 and low hyperemic flow (1/hyperemic mean transit time <2.2 or hyperemic average peak flow <25.0 cm/s), respectively. The clinical endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), myocardial infarction (MI), or cardiac death at 5 years. Results: The mean % diameter stenosis was 46.8% ± 16.5%. Abnormal pressure and flow were independent predictors of TVF and cardiac death/MI (all P < 0.05). The risk of 5-year TVF or MI/cardiac death increased proportionally with neither, either, and both abnormal resting pressure and flow, and abnormal hyperemic pressure and flow (all P for trend < 0.001). Abnormal resting pressure and flow were associated with a higher rate of TVF or MI/cardiac death in vessels with normal fractional flow reserve; this association was similar for abnormal hyperemic pressure and flow in vessels with normal resting distal coronary pressure/aortic pressure (all P < 0.05). Conclusions: Abnormal resting and hyperemic pressure and flow were independent prognostic predictors. The abnormal flow had an additive prognostic value for pressure in both resting and hyperemic conditions with complementary prognostic between resting and hyperemic parameters.