Assessing the Impact of Prolonged Averaging of Coronary Continuous Thermodilution Traces.

Continuous Thermodilution is a novel method of quantifying coronary flow (Q) in mL/min. To account for variability of Q within the cardiac cycle, the trace is smoothened with a 2 s moving average filter. This can sometimes be ineffective due to significant heart rate variability, ventricular extrasystoles, and deep inspiration, resulting in a fluctuating temperature trace and ambiguity in the location of the "steady state". This study aims to assess whether a longer moving average filter would smoothen any fluctuations within the continuous thermodilution traces resulting in improved interpretability and reproducibility on a test-retest basis. Patients with ANOCA underwent repeat continuous thermodilution measurements. Analysis of traces were performed at averages of 10, 15, and 20 s to determine the maximum acceptable average. The maximum acceptable average was subsequently applied as a moving average filter and the traces were re-analysed to assess the practical consequences of a longer moving average. Reproducibility was then assessed and compared to a 2 s moving average. Of the averages tested, only 10 s met the criteria for acceptance. When the data was reanalysed with a 10 s moving average filter, there was no significant improvement in reproducibility, however, it resulted in a 12% diagnostic mismatch. Applying a longer moving average filter to continuous thermodilution data does not improve reproducibility. Furthermore, it results in a loss of fidelity on the traces, and a 12% diagnostic mismatch. Overall, current practice should be maintained.

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.

Myocardial mass affects diagnostic performance of non-hyperemic pressure-derived indexes in the assessment of coronary stenosis.

Background Several non-hyperemic pressure-derived Indexes (NHPI) have been introduced for the assessment of coronary stenosis, showing a good correlation with fractional flow reserve (FFR). Notably, either the assessment of NHPI during adenosine administration (NHPIADO) or the Hybrid Approach (NHPIHA), combining NHPI with FFR, have been showed to increase the accuracy of such indexes. It remains unclear whether diagnostic performance might be affected by the extent of the subtended myocardial mass. METHODS: We enrolled consecutive patients with an intermediate coronary stenosis assessed with NHPI and FFR. NHPI were also measured during adenosine (ADO) administration (NHPIADO). The amount of jeopardized myocardium was assessed using the Duke Jeopardy Score (DJS). With FFR as reference, we assessed the accuracy of NHPI, NHPIADO and NHPIHA according to the extent of the subtended myocardium. RESULTS: One-hundred-seventy stenoses from 151 patients were grouped according to the DJS as follows: A) Small Extent (SE, n = 82); B) Moderate Extent (ME, n = 53); C) Large Extent (LE, n = 35). As compared with FFR, NHPI showed a significantly different accuracy, as assessed by the Youden's index, according to the extent of the jeopardized myocardium (SE: 0.39 ± 0.05, ME: 0.68 ± 0.06, LE: 0.28 ± 0.06, p < 0.001). Conversely, both the NHPIADO (SE: 0.76 ± 0.02, ME: 0.88 ± 0.02, LE: 0.82 ± 0.02, p = 0.72) and NHPIHA (SE: 0.82 ± 0.07, ME: 0.84 ± 0.02, LE: 0.88 ± 0.02, p = 0.70) allowed for a better diagnostic accuracy regardless of the amount of myocardium subtended. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic performance of NHPI might be affected by the extent of myocardial territory subtended by the coronary stenosis. A hybrid approach might be useful to overcome this limitation.

Use of a Pressure Wire for Automatically Correcting Artifacts in Phasic Pressure Tracings From a Fluid-Filled Catheter.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Matching phasic pressure tracings between a fluid-filled catheter and high-fidelity pressure wire has received limited attention, although each part contributes half of the information to clinical decisions. We aimed to study the impact of a novel and automated method for improving the phasic calibration of a fluid-filled catheter by accounting for its oscillatory behavior. METHODS/MATERIALS: Retrospective analysis of drift check tracings was performed using our algorithm that corrects for mean difference (offset), temporal delays (timing), differential sensitivity of the manifold transducer and pressure wire sensor (gain), and the oscillatory behavior of the fluid-filled catheter described by its resonant frequency and damping factor (how quickly oscillations disappear after a change in pressure). RESULTS: Among 2886 cases, correcting for oscillations showed a large improvement in 28 % and a medium improvement in 41 % (decrease in root mean square error >0.5 mmHg to <1 or 1-2 mmHg, respectively). 96 % of oscillators were underdamped with median damping factor 0.27 and frequency 10.6 Hz. Fractional flow reserve or baseline Pd/Pa demonstrated no clinically important bias when ignoring oscillations. However, uncorrected subcycle non-hyperemic pressure ratios (NHPR) displayed both bias and scatter. CONCLUSIONS: By automatically accounting for the oscillatory behavior of a fluid-filled catheter system, phasic matching against a high-fidelity pressure wire can be improved compared to standard equalization methods. The majority of tracings contain artifacts, mainly due to underdamped oscillations, and neglecting them leads to biased estimates of equalization parameters. No clinically important bias exists for whole-cycle metrics, in contrast to significant effects on subcycle NHPR.

Development, validation, and reproducibility of the pullback pressure gradient (PPG) derived from manual fractional flow reserve pullbacks.

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) pullbacks assess the location and magnitude of pressure drops along the coronary artery. The pullback pressure gradient (PPG) quantifies the FFR pullback curve and provides a numeric expression of focal versus diffuse coronary artery disease. This study aims (1) to validate the PPG using manual FFR pullbacks compared with motorized FFR pullbacks as a reference; and (2) to determine the intra- and interoperator reproducibility of the PPG derived from manual FFR pullbacks. Patients with stable coronary artery disease and an FFR ≤ 0.80 were included. All patients underwent FFR pullback evaluation either with a motorized device or manually, depending on the study cohort. The agreement of the PPG between repeated pullbacks was assessed using the Bland-Altman method. Overall, 116 FFR pullback maneuvers (96 manual and 20 motorized) were analyzed. There was excellent agreement between the PPG derived from manual and motorized pullbacks (mean difference -0.01 ± 0.07, 95% limits of agreement [LOA] -0.14 to 0.12). The intra- and interoperator reproducibility of PPG derived from manual pullbacks were excellent (mean difference <0.01, 95% LOA -0.11 to 0.12, and mean difference <0.01, 95% LOA -0.12 to 0.11, respectively). The duration of the pullback maneuver did not impact the reproducibility of the PPG (r = 0.12, 95% CI: -0.29 to 0.49, p = 0.567). Manual pullbacks allow for an accurate PPG calculation. The inter- and intraoperator reproducibility of PPG derived from manual pullbacks were excellent.

Validation of a novel non-hyperaemic index of coronary artery stenosis severity: the Resting Full-cycle Ratio (VALIDATE RFR) study.

AIMS: Randomised controlled trials have reported instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) to be non-inferior to fractional flow reserve (FFR) for major adverse cardiovascular events at one year; however, iFR is limited by sensitive landmarking of the pressure waveform, and the assumption that maximal flow and minimal resistance occur during a fixed period of diastole. We sought to validate the resting full-cycle ratio (RFR), a novel non-hyperaemic index of coronary stenosis severity based on unbiased identification of the lowest distal coronary pressure to aortic pressure ratio (Pd/Pa), independent of the ECG, landmark identification, and timing within the cardiac cycle. METHODS AND RESULTS: VALIDATE-RFR was a retrospective study designed to derive and validate the RFR. The primary endpoint was the agreement between RFR and iFR. RFR was retrospectively determined in 651 waveforms in which iFR was measured using a proprietary Philips/Volcano wire. RFR was highly correlated to iFR (R2=0.99, p<0.001), with a mean bias of -0.002 (95% limits of agreement -0.023 to 0.020). The diagnostic performance of RFR versus iFR was diagnostic accuracy 97.4%, sensitivity 98.2%, specificity 96.9%, positive predictive value 94.5%, negative predictive value 99.0%, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.996, and diagnostically equivalent within 1% (mean difference -0.002; 95% CI: -0.009 to 0.006, p=0.03). The RFR was detected outside diastole in 12.2% (341/2,790) of all cardiac cycles and 32.4% (167/516) of cardiac cycles in the right coronary artery where the sensitivity of iFR compared to FFR was lowest (40.6%). CONCLUSIONS: RFR is diagnostically equivalent to iFR but unbiased in its ability to detect the lowest Pd/Pa during the full cardiac cycle, potentially unmasking physiologically significant coronary stenoses that would be missed by assessment dedicated to specific segments of the cardiac cycle.