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.

Validation and comparison of non-hyperemic pressure reserve to fractional flow reserve for assessment of coronary artery stenosis: A real world study.

BACKGROUND: The visual interpretation of an angiographic stenosis may not always reflect the physiological significance of a lesion. Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) is a reliable index to assess the significance of a lesion during hyperemia. However, there are pitfalls that can lead to significant misinterpretation and adverse events. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to evaluate the accuracy and predictability of the non-hyperaemic pressure ratio (NHPR) without hyperemic stimuli, compared to hyperemic FFR. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study of 700 patients who underwent a pressure recording during coronary angiography using NHPR and FFR measurements. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed. NHPR sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy test were calculated. The most accurate NHPR cutoff was determined. RESULTS: Of the 700 procedures, 449 cases were included. By ROC analysis, the optimal cut-point for NHPR was 0.93 to predict an FFR of ≤0.80 with an overall diagnostic accuracy of 78.84%. The sensitivity of this NHPR cutoff was 85.06%, specificity of 75.59%, PPV of 64.53% and a NPV of 90.65%. There was an overall accuracy of about 80% for predicting non-hyperemic index (FFR < 0.80) using a cutoff of NHPR ≤ 0.93. CONCLUSIONS: The use of NHPR can be considered in certain clinical scenarios where adenosine is contraindicated or there are other challenges; with the knowledge that hyperemia might be necessary if there is any high clinical suspicion as it still remains the reference standard for diagnostic certainty.

Understanding the Basis for Hyperemic and Nonhyperemic Coronary Pressure Assessment.

Despite the now routine integration of invasive physiologic systems into coronary catheter laboratories worldwide, it remains critical that all operators maintain a sound understanding of the fundamental physiologic basis for coronary pressure assessment. More specifically, performing operators should be well informed regarding the basis for hyperemic (ie, fractional flow reserve) and nonhyperemic (ie, instantaneous wave-free ratio and other nonhyperemic pressure ratio) coronary pressure assessment. In this article, we provide readers a comprehensive history charting the inception, development, and validation of hyperemic and nonhyperemic coronary pressure assessment.

Correlation of 3D Quantitative Coronary-Angiography Based Vessel FFR With Diastolic Pressure Ratio: A Single-Center Pooled Analysis of the FAST EXTEND and FAST II Studies.

BACKGROUND: Vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) has a high diagnostic accuracy in assessing functional lesion significance compared with FFR. Nonhyperemic pressure ratios (NHPRs) were noninferior to FFR to guide revascularization of intermediate lesions. Therefore, the diagnostic performance of vFFR compared with NHPR warrants interest. AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of vFFR with a generic diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) as a reference. METHODS: The study population was derived from the FAST EXTEND and FAST II studies. Between January 2016 and September 2020, a total of 475 patients were enrolled. RESULTS: Median dPR was 0.92 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.87-0.95), median vFFR was 0.86 (IQR, 0.80-0.90). The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and diagnostic accuracy of vFFR ≤0.80 for dPR ≤0.89 were 66%, 92%, 79%, 85%, and 84%, respectively. Vessel FFR showed a good agreement with dPR (r=0.68), consistent among specific clinical lesion subsets and a high diagnostic accuracy for dPR ≤0.89 (area under the curve=0.89). Discordance between vFFR and dPR was observed in 78/492 cases (15.6%) and logistic regression analysis did not reveal any clinical, angiographic, or hemodynamic variables associated with vFFR and dPR discordance. CONCLUSION: Vessel FFR shows a good agreement with dPR and a high diagnostic accuracy for dPR ≤0.89.

Agreement Between iFR and Other Non-Hyperaemic Pressure Ratios in Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) can reliably assess the physiological significance of coronary artery disease (CAD). Previous studies have demonstrated its interchangeability with other non-hyperaemic pressure ratios (NHPR), but there is no data exploring whether this association is maintained in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS: Forty-two patients (67 lesions) with severe AS were recruited and underwent invasive pressure-wire assessment. Data were extracted to calculate iFR, resting Pd/Pa, diastolic pressure ratios (DPR and dPR), and Diastolic Hyperaemia-Free Ratio (DFR). iFR was then compared with other NHPR to determine agreement and accuracy. RESULTS: Mean aortic gradient and dimensionless index were 44.3 ± 11.6 mmHg and 0.23 ± 0.04, respectively. Of the 67 vessels, 57% were LAD, 15% LCx, 13% RCA and 12% other. There was strong positive correlation between iFR and all other NHPR, including Pd/Pa (r = 0.91, p < 0.001), DPR (r = 0.99, p < 0.001), dPR (r = 0.97, p < 0.001) and DFR (r = 0.98, p < 0.001). While Bald-Altman analysis demonstrated that Pd/Pa and DFR were numerically different from iFR, ROC analyses demonstrated iFR ≤0.89 was accurately identified by all NHPRs; Pd/Pa (AUC = 0.965, 95% CI [0.928-0.994]), DPR (AUC = 1.000, 95% CI [1.000-1.000]), dPR (AUC = 0.974, 95% CI [0.937-1.000]), DFR (AUC = 0.989, 95% CI [0.968-1.000]). CONCLUSION: In patients with severe AS, all the included NHPR in this analysis accurately predicted iFR < 0.89. These data should reassure clinicians that use of alternative NHPR to iFR is reasonable when assessing the physiological significance of CAD in patients with severe AS.

Physiology-Based Revascularization: A New Approach to Plan and Optimize Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Coronary physiological assessment using fractional flow reserve or nonhyperemic pressure ratios has become a standard of care for patients with coronary atherosclerotic disease. However, most evidence has focused on the pre-interventional use of physiological assessment to aid revascularization decision-making, whereas post-interventional physiological assessment has not been well established. Although evidence for supporting the role of post-interventional physiological assessment to optimize immediate revascularization results and long-term prognosis has been reported, a more thorough understanding of these data is crucial in incorporating post-interventional physiological assessment into daily practice. Recent scientific efforts have also focused on the potential role of pre-interventional fractional flow reserve or nonhyperemic pressure ratio pullback tracings to characterize patterns of coronary atherosclerotic disease to better predict post-interventional physiological outcomes, and thereby identify the appropriate revascularization target. Pre-interventional pullback tracings with dedicated post-processing methods can provide characterization of focal versus diffuse disease or major gradient versus minor gradient stenosis, which would result in different post-interventional physiological results. This review provides a comprehensive look at the current evidence regarding the evolving role of physiological assessment as a functional optimization tool for the entire process of revascularization, and not merely as a pre-interventional tool for revascularization decision-making.