D-14 | Efficacy of contrast Diastolic Hyperemia-Free Ratio (Contrast - DFR) in comparison to coronary Fractional Flow Reserve with adenosine and Diastolic Hyperemia-Free Ratio (DFR)

Abstract

BackgroundCoronary fractional flow reserve (FFR) is recommended as the gold standard method in evaluating intermediate coronary stenosis. Various methodologies have been reported using Diastolic Hyperemia – Free Ratio (DFR) and Instantaneous wave - free ratio.AimTo compare the contrast induced Pd/Pa ratio (DFR) with DFR and FFR.MethodsWe enrolled 19 consecutive patients with 20 intermediate lesions who underwent Diastolic pressure ratio measurement using DFR baseline Pd/Pa was calculated. A single contrast medium injection of 6 ml (3 ml/s) was performed manually and a Contrast DFR was measured within 10 seconds of injection.Following which coronary FFR measurement was performed using intravenous injection of adenosine to induce maximal hyperemia using 140 mcg/kg/min for 2 minutes and when it was ≤ 0.80, the intermediate lesion was considered as significant.Abnormal DFR was defined as cut off value 0.89, Contrast DFR as cut off value 0.80, FFR as cut off value 0.80.ResultsDiastolic pressure ratio was identified as significant in 10 lesions of 20 (50%) with a mean of 0.89 (range:0.66-1). The Contrast DFR was identified significant in 9 lesions of 20 (45%) with a mean of 0.80 (range of 0.67-0.97). FFR was abnormal in 9 lesions of 20 (45%) with a mean of 0.82 (range 0.63-0.97). A substantial positive correlation between FFR and contrast DFR values was detected (0.76) versus comparing correlation of DFR versus FFR (0.59).ConclusionsDisclosuresT. Raxwal Nothing to disclose. D. Parekh Nothing to disclose. R. M. Akel Nothing to disclose. BackgroundCoronary fractional flow reserve (FFR) is recommended as the gold standard method in evaluating intermediate coronary stenosis. Various methodologies have been reported using Diastolic Hyperemia – Free Ratio (DFR) and Instantaneous wave - free ratio. Coronary fractional flow reserve (FFR) is recommended as the gold standard method in evaluating intermediate coronary stenosis. Various methodologies have been reported using Diastolic Hyperemia – Free Ratio (DFR) and Instantaneous wave - free ratio. AimTo compare the contrast induced Pd/Pa ratio (DFR) with DFR and FFR. To compare the contrast induced Pd/Pa ratio (DFR) with DFR and FFR. MethodsWe enrolled 19 consecutive patients with 20 intermediate lesions who underwent Diastolic pressure ratio measurement using DFR baseline Pd/Pa was calculated. A single contrast medium injection of 6 ml (3 ml/s) was performed manually and a Contrast DFR was measured within 10 seconds of injection.Following which coronary FFR measurement was performed using intravenous injection of adenosine to induce maximal hyperemia using 140 mcg/kg/min for 2 minutes and when it was ≤ 0.80, the intermediate lesion was considered as significant.Abnormal DFR was defined as cut off value 0.89, Contrast DFR as cut off value 0.80, FFR as cut off value 0.80. We enrolled 19 consecutive patients with 20 intermediate lesions who underwent Diastolic pressure ratio measurement using DFR baseline Pd/Pa was calculated. A single contrast medium injection of 6 ml (3 ml/s) was performed manually and a Contrast DFR was measured within 10 seconds of injection. Following which coronary FFR measurement was performed using intravenous injection of adenosine to induce maximal hyperemia using 140 mcg/kg/min for 2 minutes and when it was ≤ 0.80, the intermediate lesion was considered as significant. Abnormal DFR was defined as cut off value 0.89, Contrast DFR as cut off value 0.80, FFR as cut off value 0.80. ResultsDiastolic pressure ratio was identified as significant in 10 lesions of 20 (50%) with a mean of 0.89 (range:0.66-1). The Contrast DFR was identified significant in 9 lesions of 20 (45%) with a mean of 0.80 (range of 0.67-0.97). FFR was abnormal in 9 lesions of 20 (45%) with a mean of 0.82 (range 0.63-0.97). A substantial positive correlation between FFR and contrast DFR values was detected (0.76) versus comparing correlation of DFR versus FFR (0.59). Diastolic pressure ratio was identified as significant in 10 lesions of 20 (50%) with a mean of 0.89 (range:0.66-1). The Contrast DFR was identified significant in 9 lesions of 20 (45%) with a mean of 0.80 (range of 0.67-0.97). FFR was abnormal in 9 lesions of 20 (45%) with a mean of 0.82 (range 0.63-0.97). A substantial positive correlation between FFR and contrast DFR values was detected (0.76) versus comparing correlation of DFR versus FFR (0.59). Conclusions DisclosuresT. Raxwal Nothing to disclose. D. Parekh Nothing to disclose. R. M. Akel Nothing to disclose. T. Raxwal Nothing to disclose. D. Parekh Nothing to disclose. R. M. Akel Nothing to disclose.