Diagnostic Performance of Diastolic Hyperemia-Free Ratio Compared With Invasive Fractional Flow Reserve for Evaluation of Coronary Artery Disease.

Hyperemic and nonhyperemic pressure ratios are frequently used to assess the hemodynamic significance of coronary artery disease and to guide the need for myocardial revascularization. However, there are limited data on the diagnostic performance of the diastolic hyperemia-free ratio (DFR). We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the DFR compared with invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR). We performed a prospective, single-center study of 308 patients (343 lesions) who underwent DFR and FFR for evaluation of visually estimated 40% to 90% stenoses. Diagnostic performance of the DFR compared with FFR was evaluated using linear regression, Bland-Altman analysis, and receiver operating characteristic curves. The overall diagnostic accuracy of the DFR was 83%; the accuracy rates were 86%, 40%, and 95% when the DFR was <0.86, 0.88 to 0.90, and >0.93, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predicative value, and negative predictive value were 60%, 91%, 71%, and 87%, respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.75 (p <0.05). The Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean difference of 0.09, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.84 to 0.92, p <0.05). In conclusion, the DFR has a good diagnostic performance compared with FFR but 17% of the measurements were discordant. The diagnostic accuracy of the DFR was only 40% when the DFR was 0.88 to 0.90, suggesting that FFR may be useful in these arteries.

Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock: Outcomes of the RECOVER III Postapproval Study by Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Shock Stage.

BACKGROUND: The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions proposed a staging system (A-E) to predict prognosis in cardiogenic shock. Herein, we report clinical outcomes of the RECOVER III study for the first time, according to Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock classification. METHODS AND RESULTS: The RECOVER III study is an observational, prospective, multicenter, single-arm, postapproval study of patients with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with Impella support. Patients enrolled in the RECOVER III study were assigned a baseline Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock stage. Staging was then repeated within 24 hours after initiation of Impella. Kaplan-Meier survival curve analyses were conducted to assess survival across Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock stages at both time points. At baseline assessment, 16.5%, 11.4%, and 72.2% were classified as stage C, D, and E, respectively. At ≤24-hour assessment, 26.4%, 33.2%, and 40.0% were classified as stage C, D, and E, respectively. Thirty-day survival among patients with stage C, D, and E shock at baseline was 59.7%, 56.5%, and 42.9%, respectively (P=0.003). Survival among patients with stage C, D, and E shock at ≤24 hours was 65.7%, 52.1%, and 29.5%, respectively (P<0.001). After multivariable analysis of impact of shock stage classifications at baseline and ≤24 hours, only stage E classification at ≤24 hours was a significant predictor of mortality (odds ratio, 4.8; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world cohort of patients with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with Impella support, only stage E classification at ≤24 hours was significantly predictive of mortality, suggesting that response to therapy may be more important than clinical severity of shock at presentation.