Age-related structural remodelling of the coronary circulation.

BACKGROUND: While it is broadly accepted that ageing is associated with impairment of coronary microvascular function, little is known about the underlying mechanisms. AIMS: We investigated age-related changes in coronary microvascular structure in patients with stable angina without epicardial coronary stenoses. METHODS: In an analysis of the IDEAL registry, a total of 165 vessels without coronary stenosis were interrogated with combined pressure/Doppler guidewires. We calculated diastolic microvascular conductance (DMVC) and backward expansion wave (BEW), and compared them between age tertiles. We calculated the prevalence of CMD, defined by reduced coronary flow reserve (CFR), and the prevalence of low BEW and low DMVC in each group. RESULTS: The three study groups were defined as having 37-53, 54-66, and 67-77 years of age, respectively. Oldest (3rd tertile) patients showed lower hyperemic flow velocity (46.7 ± 14.4 vs. 45.1 ± 12.4 vs. 38.4 ± 11.5 cm s-1, p = 0.019), lower DMVC (1.90 ± 0.71 vs. 1.44 ± 0.56 vs. 1.37 ± 0.67 cm s-1 mmHg-1, p < 0.001) and lower BEW intensity (5.9 [2.9-8.4] vs. 4.8 [2.9-6.8] vs. 4.4 [3.4-6.3] × 106 W m-2 s-1, p = 0.094). Older age was independently associated with lower BEW intensity (B: -0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.17 to -0.09, p = 0.021) and DMVC (B: -0.25 95% CI: -0.45 to -0.09, p = 0.027). In patients with CFR < 2.5, the prevalence of BEW intensity and DMVC below the 25th percentile increased with age (25.0% vs. 52.0% vs. 72.7%, p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Ageing is independently associated with structural microcirculatory remodeling that is reflected in BEW intensity and DMVC measurements, and with an increased prevalence of structural CMD. These results are important to understand non-obstructive mechanisms of myocardial ischemia in the elderly.

After RIPCORD 2, FAME 3, FLOWER-MI and FUTURE: Has the Pressure Wire had its Day?

Recent years have seen the publication of several high-profile, negative trials about pressure wires. This has coincided with a consistent increase in the ratio of angioplasty for acute coronary syndromes versus percutaneous coronary intervention in stable coronary artery disease, a greater use of intracoronary imaging during percutaneous coronary intervention and the continued evolution of computational fluid dynamics-derived estimations of fractional flow reserve from both CT and invasive coronary angiography. Consequently, many interventional cardiologists now wonder if the pressure wire will soon become obsolete. This head-to-head article provides a critical appraisal of recent trial data, discusses a potential evolution in how pressure wires are used and debates the motion that the device (and by extension, invasive assessment of coronary physiology) has now had its day.

N-of-1 Trial of Angina Verification Before Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: In stable coronary artery disease, 30% to 60% of patients remain symptomatic despite successful revascularization. Perhaps not all symptoms reported by a patient with myocardial ischemia are, in fact, angina. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether independent symptom verification using a placebo-controlled ischemic stimulus could distinguish which patients achieve greatest symptom relief from percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: ORBITA-STAR was a multicenter, n-of-1, placebo-controlled study in patients undergoing single-vessel PCI for stable symptoms. Participants underwent 4 episodes (60 seconds each) of low-pressure balloon occlusion across their coronary stenosis, randomly paired with 4 episodes of placebo inflation. Following each episode, patients reported the similarity of the induced symptom in comparison with their usual symptom. The similarity score ranged from -10 (placebo replicated the symptom more than balloon occlusion) to +10 (balloon occlusion exactly replicated the symptom). The primary endpoint was the ability of the similarity score to predict symptom relief with PCI. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were recruited, aged 62.9 ± 8.6 years. The median fractional flow reserve was 0.68 (Q1-Q3: 0.57-0.79), and the instantaneous wave-free ratio was 0.80 (Q1-Q3: 0.48-0.89). The median similarity score was 3 (Q1-Q3: 0.875-5.25). The similarity score was a strong predictor of symptom improvement following PCI: a patient with an upper quartile similarity score of 5.25 was significantly more likely to have lower angina frequency at follow-up (OR: 8.01; 95% credible interval: 2.39-15.86) than a patient with a lower quartile similarity score of 0.875 (OR: 1.31; 95% credible interval: 0.71-1.99), Pr(difference) >99.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Similarity score powerfully predicted symptom improvement from PCI. These data lay the foundation for independent symptom mapping to target PCI to those patients most likely to benefit. (Systematic Trial of Angina Assessment Before Revascularization [ORBITA-STAR]; NCT04280575).

Symptoms as a Predictor of the Placebo-Controlled Efficacy of PCI in Stable Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Placebo-controlled evidence from ORBITA-2 (Objective Randomised Blinded Investigation with Optimal Medical Therapy of Angioplasty in Stable Angina-2) found that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in stable coronary artery disease with little or no antianginal medication relieved angina, but residual symptoms persisted in many patients. The reason for this was unclear. OBJECTIVES: This ORBITA-2 secondary analysis investigates the relationship between presenting symptoms and disease severity (anatomic, noninvasive, and invasive ischemia) and the ability of symptoms to predict the placebo-controlled efficacy of PCI. METHODS: Prerandomization symptom severity and nature were assessed using the ORBITA smartphone application and symptom and quality of life questionnaires including the World Health Organization Rose angina questionnaire (Rose). Disease severity was assessed using quantitative coronary angiography, stress echocardiography, fractional flow reserve, and instantaneous wave-free ratio. Bayesian ordinal regression was used. RESULTS: At prerandomization, the median number of daily angina episodes was 0.8 (Q1-Q3: 0.4-1.6), 64% had Rose angina, quantitative coronary angiography diameter stenosis was 61% (Q1-Q3: 49%-74%), stress echocardiography score was 1.0 (Q1-Q3: 0.0-2.7), fractional flow reserve was 0.63 (Q1-Q3: 0.49-0.75), and instantaneous wave-free ratio was 0.78 (Q1-Q3: 0.55-0.87). There was little relationship between symptom severity and nature and disease severity: angina symptom score with quantitative coronary angiography ordinal correlation coefficient: 0.06 (95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.00-0.08); stress echocardiography: 0.09 (95% CrI: 0.02-0.10); fractional flow reserve: 0.04 (95% CrI: -0.03 to 0.07); and instantaneous wave-free ratio: 0.04 (95% CrI: -0.01 to 0.07). However, Rose angina and guideline-based typical angina were strong predictors of placebo-controlled PCI efficacy (angina symptom score: OR: 1.9; 95% CrI: 1.6-2.1; probability of interaction [PrInteraction] = 99.9%; and OR: 1.8; 95% CrI: 1.6-2.1; PrInteraction = 99.9%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although symptom severity and nature were poorly associated with disease severity, the nature of symptoms powerfully predicted the placebo-controlled efficacy of PCI.

Physiological Assessment with iFR prior to FFR Measurement in Left Main Disease.

Despite guideline-based recommendation of the interchangeable use of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide revascularization decision-making, iFR/FFR could demonstrate different physiological or clinical outcomes in some specific patient or lesion subsets. Therefore, we sought to investigate the impact of difference between iFR and FFR-guided revascularization decision-making on clinical outcomes in patients with left main disease (LMD). In this international multicenter registry of LMD with physiological interrogation, we identified 275 patients in whom physiological assessment was performed with both iFR/FFR. Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) was defined as a composite of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The receiver-operating characteristic analysis was performed for both iFR/FFR to predict MACE in respective patients in whom revascularization was deferred and performed. In 153 patients of revascularization deferral, MACE occurred in 17.0% patients. The optimal cut-off values of iFR and FFR to predict MACE were 0.88 (specificity:0.74; sensitivity:0.65) and 0.76 (specificity:0.81; sensitivity:0.46), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) was significantly higher for iFR than FFR (0.74; 95%CI 0.62-0.85 vs. 0.62; 95%CI 0.48-0.75; p = 0.012). In 122 patients of coronary revascularization, MACE occurred in 13.1% patients. The optimal cut-off values of iFR and FFR were 0.92 (specificity:0.93; sensitivity:0.25) and 0.81 (specificity:0.047; sensitivity:1.00), respectively. The AUCs were not significantly different between iFR and FFR (0.57; 95%CI 0.40-0.73 vs. 0.46; 95%CI 0.31-0.61; p = 0.43). While neither baseline iFR nor FFR was predictive of MACE in patients in whom revascularization was performed, iFR-guided deferral seemed to be safer than FFR-guided deferral.

Coronary sinus reducer for the treatment of refractory angina (ORBITA-COSMIC): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The coronary sinus reducer (CSR) is proposed to reduce angina in patients with stable coronary artery disease by improving myocardial perfusion. We aimed to measure its efficacy, compared with placebo, on myocardial ischaemia reduction and symptom improvement. METHODS: ORBITA-COSMIC was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial conducted at six UK hospitals. Patients aged 18 years or older with angina, stable coronary artery disease, ischaemia, and no further options for treatment were eligible. All patients completed a quantitative adenosine-stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance scan, symptom and quality-of-life questionnaires, and a treadmill exercise test before entering a 2-week symptom assessment phase, in which patients reported their angina symptoms using a smartphone application (ORBITA-app). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either CSR or placebo. Both participants and investigators were masked to study assignment. After the CSR implantation or placebo procedure, patients entered a 6-month blinded follow-up phase in which they reported their daily symptoms in the ORBITA-app. At 6 months, all assessments were repeated. The primary outcome was myocardial blood flow in segments designated ischaemic at enrolment during the adenosine-stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance scan. The primary symptom outcome was the number of daily angina episodes. Analysis was done by intention-to-treat and followed Bayesian methodology. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04892537, and completed. FINDINGS: Between May 26, 2021, and June 28, 2023, 61 patients were enrolled, of whom 51 (44 [86%] male; seven [14%] female) were randomly assigned to either the CSR group (n=25) or the placebo group (n=26). Of these, 50 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (24 in the CSR group and 26 in the placebo group). 454 (57%) of 800 imaged cardiac segments were ischaemic at enrolment, with a median stress myocardial blood flow of 1·08 mL/min per g (IQR 0·77-1·41). Myocardial blood flow in ischaemic segments did not improve with CSR compared with placebo (difference 0·06 mL/min per g [95% CrI -0·09 to 0·20]; Pr(Benefit)=78·8%). The number of daily angina episodes was reduced with CSR compared with placebo (OR 1·40 [95% CrI 1·08 to 1·83]; Pr(Benefit)=99·4%). There were two CSR embolisation events in the CSR group, and no acute coronary syndrome events or deaths in either group. INTERPRETATION: ORBITA-COSMIC found no evidence that the CSR improved transmural myocardial perfusion, but the CSR did improve angina compared with placebo. These findings provide evidence for the use of CSR as a further antianginal option for patients with stable coronary artery disease. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, St Mary's Coronary Flow Trust, British Heart Foundation.

The ability of contemporary cardiologists to judge the ischemic impact of a coronary lesion visually

BACKGROUND: Landmark trials showed that invasive pressure measurement (Fractional Flow Reserve, FFR) was a better guide to coronary stenting than visual assessment. However, present-day interventionists have benefited from extensive research and personal experience of mapping anatomy to hemodynamics. AIMS: To determine if visual assessment of the angiogram performs as well as invasive measurement of coronary physiology. METHODS: 25 interventional cardiologists independently visually assessed the single vessel coronary disease of 200 randomized participants in The Objective Randomized Blinded Investigation with optimal medical Therapy of Angioplasty in stable angina trial (ORBITA). They gave a visual prediction of the FFR and Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio (iFR), denoted vFFR and viFR respectively. Each judged each lesion on 2 occasions, so that every lesion had 50 vFFR, and 50 viFR assessments. The group consensus visual estimates (vFFR-group and viFR-group) and individual cardiologists' visual estimates (vFFR-individual and viFR-individual) were tested alongside invasively measured FFR and iFR for their ability to predict the placebo-controlled reduction in stress echo ischemia with stenting. RESULTS: Placebo-controlled ischemia improvement with stenting was predicted by vFFR-group (p < 0.0001) and viFR-group (p < 0.0001), vFFR-individual (p < 0.0001) and viFR-individual (p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences between the predictive performance of the group visual estimates and their invasive counterparts: p = 0.53 for vFFR vs FFR and p = 0.56 for viFR vs iFR. CONCLUSION: Visual assessment of the angiogram by contemporary experts, provides significant additional information on the amount of ischaemia which can be relieved by placebo-controlled stenting in single vessel coronary artery disease.

A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of the coronary sinus Reducer in refractory angina: design and rationale of the ORBITA-COSMIC trial.

The coronary sinus Reducer (CSR) is an hourglass-shaped device which creates an artificial stenosis in the coronary sinus. Whilst placebo-controlled data show an improvement in angina, these results are unreplicated and are the subject of further confirmatory research. The mechanism of action of this unintuitive therapy is unknown. The Coronary Sinus Reducer Objective Impact on Symptoms, MRI Ischaemia, and Microvascular Resistance (ORBITA-COSMIC) trial is a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial investigating the efficacy of the CSR. Patients with (i) established epicardial coronary artery disease, (ii) angina on maximally tolerated antianginal medication, (iii) evidence of myocardial ischaemia and (iv) no further options for percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting will be enrolled. Upon enrolment, angina and quality-of-life questionnaires, treadmill exercise testing and quantitative stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging will be performed. Participants will record their symptoms daily on a smartphone application throughout the trial. After a 2-week symptom assessment phase, participants will be randomised in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory to CSR or a placebo procedure. After 6 months of blinded follow-up, all prerandomisation tests will be repeated. A prespecified subgroup will undergo invasive coronary physiology assessment at prerandomisation and follow-up. The primary outcome is stress myocardial blood flow on CMR. Secondary outcomes include angina frequency, quality of life and treadmill exercise time. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04892537).

The ability of contemporary cardiologists to judge the ischemic impact of a coronary lesion visually.

BACKGROUND: Landmark trials showed that invasive pressure measurement (Fractional Flow Reserve, FFR) was a better guide to coronary stenting than visual assessment. However, present-day interventionists have benefited from extensive research and personal experience of mapping anatomy to hemodynamics. AIMS: To determine if visual assessment of the angiogram performs as well as invasive measurement of coronary physiology. METHODS: 25 interventional cardiologists independently visually assessed the single vessel coronary disease of 200 randomized participants in The Objective Randomized Blinded Investigation with optimal medical Therapy of Angioplasty in stable angina trial (ORBITA). They gave a visual prediction of the FFR and Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio (iFR), denoted vFFR and viFR respectively. Each judged each lesion on 2 occasions, so that every lesion had 50 vFFR, and 50 viFR assessments. The group consensus visual estimates (vFFR-group and viFR-group) and individual cardiologists' visual estimates (vFFR-individual and viFR-individual) were tested alongside invasively measured FFR and iFR for their ability to predict the placebo-controlled reduction in stress echo ischemia with stenting. RESULTS: Placebo-controlled ischemia improvement with stenting was predicted by vFFR-group (p < 0.0001) and viFR-group (p < 0.0001), vFFR-individual (p < 0.0001) and viFR-individual (p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences between the predictive performance of the group visual estimates and their invasive counterparts: p = 0.53 for vFFR vs FFR and p = 0.56 for viFR vs iFR. CONCLUSION: Visual assessment of the angiogram by contemporary experts, provides significant additional information on the amount of ischaemia which can be relieved by placebo-controlled stenting in single vessel coronary artery disease.

A Placebo-Controlled Trial of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Angina.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is frequently performed to reduce the symptoms of stable angina. Whether PCI relieves angina more than a placebo procedure in patients who are not receiving antianginal medication remains unknown. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of PCI in patients with stable angina. Patients stopped all antianginal medications and underwent a 2-week symptom assessment phase before randomization. Patients were then randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo PCI or a placebo procedure and were followed for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the angina symptom score, which was calculated daily on the basis of the number of angina episodes that occurred on a given day, the number of antianginal medications prescribed on that day, and clinical events, including the occurrence of unblinding owing to unacceptable angina or acute coronary syndrome or death. Scores range from 0 to 79, with higher scores indicating worse health status with respect to angina. RESULTS: A total of 301 patients underwent randomization: 151 to the PCI group and 150 to the placebo group. The mean (±SD) age was 64±9 years, and 79% were men. Ischemia was present in one cardiac territory in 242 patients (80%), in two territories in 52 patients (17%), and in three territories in 7 patients (2%). In the target vessels, the median fractional flow reserve was 0.63 (interquartile range, 0.49 to 0.75), and the median instantaneous wave-free ratio was 0.78 (interquartile range, 0.55 to 0.87). At the 12-week follow-up, the mean angina symptom score was 2.9 in the PCI group and 5.6 in the placebo group (odds ratio, 2.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.41 to 3.47; P<0.001). One patient in the placebo group had unacceptable angina leading to unblinding. Acute coronary syndromes occurred in 4 patients in the PCI group and in 6 patients in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable angina who were receiving little or no antianginal medication and had objective evidence of ischemia, PCI resulted in a lower angina symptom score than a placebo procedure, indicating a better health status with respect to angina. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and others; ORBITA-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03742050.).