6115Influence of microvascular function and coronary flow in the diagnostic precision of resting full-cycle ratio

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) has been recently described as a non-hyperemic index of coronary stenosis with good concordance with Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR). However, there is no information concerning the influence of microvascular function and coronary flow on RFR results. Purpose To determine if the accuracy of this novel parameter might be influenced by changes in microvascular function. Methods 133 patients admitted in our center between July 2016 and December 2017 underwent coronary physiology study of an angiographically intermediate lesion. 67 subjects presented with AMI and an intermediate lesion in a non-culprit artery, and 66 subjects stable coronary disease. We performed FFR, Coronary Flow Reserve (CFR), Index of Microcirculatory Resistance (IMR) and Resistance Reserve Ratio (RRR) in all of them. We calculated RFR retrospectively from the pressure tracings. Results Coronary physiology parameters showed a non-normal distribution and are presented as median [IQR]: FFR 0.86 [0.79–0.92]; CFR 2.05 [1.4–2.95]; IMR 20.5 [14–32.55]; RRR 2.5 [1.85–3.63]; RFR 0.897 [0.83–0.94]. Patients with abnormal CFR displayed lower RFR values although FFR was not markedly affected (Table 1). These findings remained irrespective of the clinical scenario at presentation. 61 patients had a CFR lower than 2. Correlation between RFR and FFR was not significantly different in patients with abnormal CFR than in those with normal CFR (0,73 vs 0,88; p=0,067) (Figure 1); however, overall binary agreement between RFR and FFR was worse in patients with a low CFR (69% vs 83%; p=0,047). 48 patients had a high IMR (>25). Linear correlation between RFR and FFR was similar in patients with high and normal IMR (0,81 vs 0,83; p=0,784); likewise, binary concordance showed no significant difference between both groups (77% vs 75%, p=0,78). The mean difference between RFR and FFR was 0,025. This was only influenced by CFR: patients with a low CFR had a smaller difference than those with a normal CFR (0,012 vs 0,035; p=0,019). Physiology parameters by CFR group Normal CFR (≥2) Low CFR (<2) P-value FFR 0.88 [0.82–0.93] 0.84 [0.79–0.92] 0.14 RFR 0.91 [0.88–0.95] 0.86 [0.80–0.92] 0.0009 IMR 16.5 [13–27] 25 [16–45.5] 0.002 RRR 3.6 [2.7–4.9] 1.7 [1.3–2.1] <0.0001 Physiological coronary parameters (Median [IQR]) according to CFR. Correlation between RFR and FFR by CFR Conclusion RFR has good overall correlation and concordance with FFR. However, RFR has a lower diagnostic accuracy in patients with a low CFR. Acknowledgement/Funding None