RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of coronary collateral circulation (CC) in patients undergoing chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is underdetermined. The purpose of the study was to assess the prognostic value of current two CC grading systems and their association with long-term outcomes in patients with CTO underwent PCI. METHODS: We consecutively enrolled patients with single-vessel CTO underwent PCI between January 2010 and December 2013. All patients were categorized into well-developed or poor-developed collaterals group according to angiographic Werner's CC (grade 2 vs. grade 0-1) or Rentrop (grade 3 vs. grade 0-2) grading system. The primary endpoint was 5-year cardiac death. RESULTS: Of 2452 enrolled patients, the overall technical success rate was 74.1%. Well-developed collaterals were present in 686 patients (28.0%) defined by Werner's CC grade 2, and in 1145 patients (46.7%) by Rentrop grade 3. According to Werner's CC grading system, patients with well-developed collaterals had a lower rate of 5-year cardiac death compared with those with poor-developed collaterals (1.6% vs. 3.3%, P = 0.02), those with suboptimal recanalization was associated with higher rate of 5-year cardiac death compared with optimal recanalization (4.7% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.01) and failure patients (4.7% vs. 1.6%, P = 0.12). However, the similar effect was not shown in Rentrop grading system. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with the single-vessel CTO underwent PCI, well-developed collaterals by Werner's CC definition were associated with lower rate of 5-year cardiac death. Werner's CC grading system had a greater prognostic value than Rentrop grading system in patients with CTO underwent PCI.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To establish a scoring system combining the ACEF score and the quantitative blood flow ratio (QFR) to improve the long-term risk prediction of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: In this population-based cohort study, a total of 46 features, including patient clinical and coronary lesion characteristics, were assessed for analysis through machine learning models. The ACEF-QFR scoring system was developed using 1263 consecutive cases of CAD patients after PCI in PANDA III trial database. The newly developed score was then validated on the other remaining 542 patients in the cohort. RESULTS: In both the Random Forest Model and the DeepSurv Model, age, renal function (creatinine), cardiac function (LVEF) and post-PCI coronary physiological index (QFR) were identified and confirmed to be significant predictive factors for 2-year adverse cardiac events. The ACEF-QFR score was constructed based on the developmental dataset and computed as age (years)/EF (%) + 1 (if creatinine ≥ 2.0 mg/dL) + 1 (if post-PCI QFR ≤ 0.92). The performance of the ACEF-QFR scoring system was preliminarily evaluated in the developmental dataset, and then further explored in the validation dataset. The ACEF-QFR score showed superior discrimination (C-statistic = 0.651; 95% CI: 0.611-0.691, P < 0.05 versus post-PCI physiological index and other commonly used risk scores) and excellent calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow χ2 = 7.070; P = 0.529) for predicting 2-year patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE). The good prognostic value of the ACEF-QFR score was further validated by multivariable Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analysis (adjusted HR = 1.89; 95% CI: 1.18-3.04; log-rank P < 0.01) after stratified the patients into high-risk group and low-risk group. CONCLUSIONS: An improved scoring system combining clinical and coronary lesion-based functional variables (ACEF-QFR) was developed, and its ability for prognostic prediction in patients with PCI was further validated to be significantly better than the post-PCI physiological index and other commonly used risk scores.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The recently introduced ultrasonic flow ratio (UFR), is a novel fast computational method to derive fractional flow reserve (FFR) from intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) images. In the present study, we evaluate the diagnostic performance of UFR in patients with intermediate left main (LM) stenosis. METHODS: This is a prospective, single center study enrolling consecutive patients with presence of intermediated LM lesions (diameter stenosis of 30%-80% by visual estimation) underwent IVUS and FFR measurement. An independent core laboratory assessed offline UFR and IVUS-derived minimal lumen area (MLA) in a blinded fashion. RESULTS: Both UFR and FFR were successfully achieved in 41 LM patients (mean age, 62.0 ± 9.9 years, 46.3% diabetes). An acceptable correlation between UFR and FFR was identified (r = 0.688, P < 0.0001), with an absolute numerical difference of 0.03 (standard difference: 0.01). The area under the curve (AUC) in diagnosis of physiologically significant coronary stenosis for UFR was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.87-1.01), which was significantly higher than angiographic identified stenosis > 50% (AUC = 0.66, P < 0.001) and numerically higher than IVUS-derived MLA (AUC = 0.82; P = 0.09). Patient level diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity for UFR to identify FFR ≤ 0.80 was 82.9% (95% CI: 70.2-95.7), 93.1% (95% CI: 82.2-100.0), 58.3% (95% CI: 26.3-90.4), respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients with intermediate LM diseases, UFR was proved to be associated with acceptable correlation and high accuracy with pressure wire-based FFR as standard reference. The present study supports the use of UFR for functional evaluation of intermediate LM stenosis.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Ultrasonic flow ratio (UFR) is a novel intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-derived modality for fast computation of fractional flow reserve (FFR) without pressure wires and adenosine. AIMS: This study was sought to compare the diagnostic performance of UFR and quantitative flow ratio (QFR), using FFR as the reference standard. METHODS: This is a retrospective study enrolling consecutive patients with intermediate coronary artery lesions (diameter stenosis of 30%-90% by visual estimation) for IVUS and FFR measurement. UFR and QFR were performed offline in a core-lab by independent analysts blinded to FFR. RESULTS: From December 2022 to May 2023, a total of 78 eligible patients were enrolled. IVUS and FFR measurements were successfully conducted in 104 vessels, finally 98 vessels with both FFR, UFR and QFR evaluation were analyzed. Mean FFR was 0.79 ± 0.12. UFR showed a strong correlation with FFR similar to QFR (r = 0.83 vs. 0.82, p = 0.795). Diagnostic accuracy of UFR was non-inferior to QFR (94% [89%-97%] versus 90% [84%-94%], p = 0.113). Sensitivity and specificity in identifying hemodynamically significant stenosis were comparable between UFR and QFR (sensitivity: 89% [79%-96%] versus 85% [74%-92%], p = 0.453; specificity: 97% [91%-99%] versus 95% [88%-99%], p = 0.625). The area under curve for UFR was 0.95 [0.90-0.98], non-inferior to QFR (difference = 0.021, p = 0.293), and significantly higher than minimum lumen area (MLA; difference = 0.13, p < 0.001). Diagnostic accuracy of UFR and QFR was not statically different in bifurcation nor non-bifurcation lesions. CONCLUSIONS: UFR showed excellent concordance with FFR, non-inferior to QFR, superior to MLA. UFR provides a potentiality for the integration of physiological assessment and intravascular imaging in clinical practice.