Vessel Fractional Flow Reserve Research Articles

Association Between Automated 3D Measurement of Coronary Luminal Narrowing and Risk of Future Myocardial Infarction.

This study focuses on identifying anatomical markers with predictive capacity for long-term myocardial infarction (MI) in focal coronary artery disease (CAD). Eighty future culprit lesions (FCL) and 108 non-culprit lesions (NCL) from 80 patients underwent 3D quantitative coronary angiography. The minimum lumen area (MLA), minimum lumen ratio (MLR), and vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) were evaluated. MLR was defined as the ratio between MLA and the cross-sectional area at the proximal lesion edge, with lower values indicating more abrupt luminal narrowing. Significant differences were observed between FCL and NCL in MLR (0.41 vs. 0.53, p < 0.001). MLR correlated inversely with translesional vFFR (r = - 0.26, p = 0.0004) and was the strongest predictor of MI at 5years (AUC = 0.75). Lesions with MLR < 0.40 had a fourfold increased MI incidence at 5years. MLR is a robust predictor of future adverse coronary events.

Diagnostic accuracy of vessel fractional flow reserve compared to conventional diagnostic tools in patients with coronary artery stenosis

Abstract Background Wire-based fractional flow reserve (FFR) is currently the golden standard in a physiological assessment for intermediate coronary artery stenosis (CAS). However, the clinical advantage of FFR has been limited by its invasiveness. In the previous study with a small number of participants (334 patients), three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography (3D-QCA)-based vessel FFR (vFFR) has shown non-inferiority to wire-based FFR in diagnostic accuracy. There has been no reports regarding the relationship between vFFR and other conventional physiological assessment tools. Methods The present study was a retrospective registry designed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of vFFR compared to the conventional reference standard (wire-based FFR ≤0.80). Between January 2019 and February 2022, patients with stable or unstable angina, and non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome who had undergone physiological assessments [wire-based FFR, instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), resting full-cycle ratio (RFR), and/or coronary computed tomography angiography-derived FFR (FFRCT)] before percutaneous coronary intervention were included for the present analysis. The exclusion criteria were ST-elevation myocardial infarction, previous coronary artery bypass grafting, cardiogenic shock, and adenosine intolerance. In the present study, we investigate the relationship between vFFR and conventional tools such as wire-based FFR, iFR, RFR, and/or FFRCT in patients with intermediate CAS, including multi-vessel disease, severe coronary calcium, in-stent restenosis, and hemodialysis. Results The study included 722 patients (mean age, 70±10 years; male, 80%) who underwent vFFR in 698 patients (97%), wire-based FFR in 711 (98%), iFR in 523 (72%), RFR in 109 (15%), and FFRCT in 48 (7%). Most patients presented stable angina (93%). In the present study, multi-vessel disease was identified only 20% of all. A total of 1108 target vessels were LAD in 549 (50%), LCx in 287 (26%), and RCA in 272 (24%), respectively. Bifurcation lesions and in-stent restenosis were present in 12% and 13%, respectively. The subjects were diagnosed several comorbidities, such as hypertension (77%), dyslipidemia (57%), diabetes mellitus (40%), and hemodialysis (12%). Overall, vFFR showed good correlations with wire-based FFR (r=0.70; p&amp;lt;0.001), IFR (r=0.57; p&amp;lt;0.001), and RFR (r=0.69; p&amp;lt;0.001). However, the correlation between vFFR and FFRCT was weak (r=0.36; p&amp;lt;0.001). Furthermore, vFFR had a good diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value and positive predictive value; 81%, 88%, 82% and 87%, respectively) to identify the lesions with wire-based FFR≤0.80 (AUC, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.90; p&amp;lt;0.001). Conclusion In this large number cohort, the 3D-QCA based vFFR has a good correlation with wire-based FFR, and a high diagnostic accuracy to detect the lesion with FFR ≤ 0.80 even in patients with severe coronary calcification, in-stent restenosis, and hemodialysis.Scatter plotsBland-Altman plots

Blood Flow Energy Identifies Coronary Lesions Culprit of Future Myocardial Infarction

The present study establishes a link between blood flow energy transformations in coronary atherosclerotic lesions and clinical outcomes. The predictive capacity for future myocardial infarction (MI) was compared with that of established quantitative coronary angiography (QCA)-derived predictors. Angiography-based computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations were performed on 80 human coronary lesions culprit of MI within 5 years and 108 non-culprit lesions for future MI. Blood flow energy transformations were assessed in the converging flow segment of the lesion as ratios of kinetic and rotational energy values (KER and RER, respectively) at the QCA-identified minimum lumen area and proximal lesion sections. The anatomical and functional lesion severity were evaluated with QCA to derive percentage area stenosis (%AS), vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR), and translesional vFFR (ΔvFFR). Wall shear stress profiles were investigated in terms of topological shear variation index (TSVI). KER and RER predicted MI at 5 years (AUC = 0.73, 95% CI 0.65–0.80, and AUC = 0.76, 95% CI 0.70–0.83, respectively; p < 0.0001 for both). The predictive capacity for future MI of KER and RER was significantly stronger than vFFR (p = 0.0391 and p = 0.0045, respectively). RER predictive capacity was significantly stronger than %AS and ΔvFFR (p = 0.0041 and p = 0.0059, respectively). The predictive capacity for future MI of KER and RER did not differ significantly from TSVI. Blood flow kinetic and rotational energy transformations were significant predictors for MI at 5 years (p < 0.0001). The findings of this study support the hypothesis of a biomechanical contribution to the process of plaque destabilization/rupture leading to MI.

Preoperative angiography-derived fractional flow reserve may predict coronary artery bypass grafting occlusion and disease progression.

Graft occlusion after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been associated with competitive flow of native coronary arteries. To assess with coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) graft occlusion and coronary artery disease (CAD) progression of native vessels after CABG and their relationship with angiography-derived vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) performed before surgery. Between 2006 and 2018, serial vFFR analyses were obtained before CABG in each major native coronary vessel from two institutions. All patients underwent follow-up CCTA. In 171 consecutive patients, serial preoperative angiograms were suitable for vFFR analysis of 298 grafted and 59 nongrafted vessels. Median time between CABG and CCTA was 2.1 years. Preoperative vFFR was assessed in 131 left anterior descending artery (LAD), 132 left circumflex artery (LCX) and 94 right coronary aretry (RCA) and was less than 0.80 in 255 of 298 bypassed vessels. Graft occlusion was observed at CCTA in 28 of 298 grafts. The median preoperative vFFR value of native coronaries was higher in occluded compared with patent grafts (0.75 vs. 0.60, P < 0.001) and was associated with graft. The best vFFR cut-off to predict graft occlusion was 0.67. Progression of CAD was higher in grafted than in nongrafted vessels (89.6 vs. 47.5%, P < 0.001). Pre-CABG vFFR predicted disease progression of grafted native vessels (AUC = 0.83). Preoperative vFFR derived from invasive coronary angiography was able to predict graft occlusion and CAD progression of grafted coronary arteries.

Intravascular Imaging versus Physiological Assessment versus Biomechanics-Which Is a Better Guide for Coronary Revascularization.

Today, coronary artery disease (CAD) continues to be a prominent cause of death worldwide. A reliable assessment of coronary stenosis represents a prerequisite for the appropriate management of CAD. Nevertheless, there are still major challenges pertaining to some limitations of current imaging and functional diagnostic modalities. The present review summarizes the current data on invasive functional and intracoronary imaging assessment using optical coherence tomography (OCT), and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). Amongst the functional parameters-on top of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR)-we point to novel angiography-based measures such as quantitative flow ratio (QFR), vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR), angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (FFRangio), and computed tomography-derived flow fractional reserve (FFR-CT), as well as hybrid approaches focusing on optical flow ratio (OFR), computational fluid dynamics and attempts to quantify the forces exaggerated by blood on the coronary plaque and vessel wall.

Acute-setting vs. staged-setting vessel fractional flow reserve of intermediate non-culprit lesions in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (FAST STAGED study)

Acute-setting vs. staged-setting vessel fractional flow reserve of intermediate non-culprit lesions in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (FAST STAGED study)

Fractional flow reserve or 3D-quantitative-coronary-angiography based vessel-FFR guided revascularization. Rationale and study design of the prospective randomized fast III trial

Physiological assessment of intermediate coronary lesions to guide coronary revascularization is currently recommended by international guidelines. Vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) has emerged as a new approach to derive fractional flow reserve (FFR) from 3D-quantitative coronary angiography (3D-QCA) without the need for hyperemic agents or pressure wires. The FAST III is an investigator-initiated, open label, multicenter randomized trial comparing vFFR guided versus FFR guided coronary revascularization in approximately 2228 patients with intermediate coronary lesions (defined as 30%-80% stenosis by visual assessment or QCA). Intermediate lesions are physiologically assessed using on-line vFFR or FFR and treated if vFFR or FFR ≤0.80. The primary end point is a composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization at 1-year post-randomization. Secondary end points include the individual components of the primary end point and cost-effectiveness will be investigated. FAST III is the first randomized trial to explore whether a vFFR guided revascularization strategy is non-inferior to an FFR guided strategy in terms of clinical outcomes at 1-year follow-up in patients with intermediate coronary artery lesions.

Comparison of vessel fractional flow reserve with invasive resting full-cycle ratio in patients with intermediate coronary lesions

BackgroundVessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) is a novel angiography-derived index for the assessment of myocardial ischemia without the need for pressure wires and hyperemic agents. vFFR has demonstrated very good diagnostic performance compared with the hyperemic index fractional flow reserve (FFR). The aim of this study was to compare vFFR to the non-hyperemic pressure ratio resting full-cycle ratio (RFR). MethodsThis was a retrospective, observational, single-center study of an all-comer cohort undergoing RFR assessment. Invasive coronary angiography was obtained without a dedicated vFFR acquisition protocol, and vFFR calculation was attempted in all vessels interrogated by RFR (1483 lesions of 1030 patients). ResultsvFFR could be analyzed in 986 lesions from 705 patients. Median diameter stenosis was 37% (interquartile range (IQR): 30.0–44.0%), vFFR 0.86 (IQR: 0.81–0.91) and RFR 0.94 (IQR: (0.90–0.97). The correlation between vFFR and RFR was strong (r = 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66–0.74, p < 0.001). Using RFR ≤0.89 as reference, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and overall diagnostic accuracy for vFFR were 77%, 93%, 77%, and 92% and 89%. vFFR yielded a high area under the curve (AUC) of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90–0.94). The good diagnostic performance of vFFR was confirmed among subgroups of patients with diabetes, severe aortic stenosis, female gender and lesions located in the left anterior descending artery. ConclusionvFFR has a high diagnostic performance taking RFR as the reference standard for evaluating the functional significance of coronary stenoses.

Comparison between the diagnostic performance of vessel fractional flow reserve and nonhyperemic pressure ratio for functionally significant coronary stenosis severity as assessed by fractional flow reserve.

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and nonhyperemic pressure ratios (NHPRs) have been widely used to assess the functional severity of coronary stenosis. However, their measurement requires using a pressure wire, making their use in all patients difficult. The recently developed vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR), derived from three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography, is expected to serve as a surrogate for pressure wire assessment. This retrospective study was conducted on patients with intermediate coronary stenosis who underwent FFR and NHPR measurements. The vFFR and NHPR values were compared for diagnosing coronary stenosis as defined by an FFR of ≤0.80, and the number of patients not requiring wire-based assessment was estimated. In a total of 90 lesions from 74 patients (median [SD] age 75 [12] years; men 80%), the median FFR was 0.78 (0.72-0.84), and 57% of these lesions (N = 51) exhibited an FFR of ≤0.80. vFFR provided high discrimination for coronary stenosis (area under the curve 0.80, 95% confidence interval0.70-0.90), which was comparable to that of NHPRs (p = 0.42). High diagnostic accuracy was consistently observed across a variety of clinical presentations (i.e., old age, diabetes, target coronary artery, and left ventricular hypertrophy) (pinteraction > 0.05). In total, 55 lesions (61%) demonstrated positive or negative likelihood of coronary stenosis when vFFR was <0.73 (specificity 90%) or >0.87 (sensitivity 88%), respectively. vFFR demonstrated excellent diagnostic performance for detecting functionally significant coronary stenosis as evaluated by FFR. vFFR may be used as a surrogate for pressure wire assessment.

Vessel fractional flow reserve-based non-culprit lesion reclassification in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Impact on treatment strategy and clinical outcome (FAST STEMI I study)

BackgroundComplete revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial (STEMI) improves clinical outcome. Vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) has been validated as a non-invasive physiological technology to evaluate hemodynamic lesion significance without need for a dedicated pressure wire or hyperemic agent. This study aimed to assess discordance between vFFR reclassification and treatment strategy in intermediate non-culprit lesions of STEMI patients and to assess the clinical impact of this discordance. MethodsThis was a single-center, retrospective cohort study. From January 2018 to December 2019, consecutive eligible STEMI patients were screened based on the presence of a non-culprit vessel with an intermediate lesion (30–80% angiographic stenosis) feasible for offline vFFR analysis. The primary outcome was the percentage of non-culprit vessels with discordance between vFFR and actual treatment strategy. The secondary outcome was two-year vessel-oriented composite endpoint (VOCE), a composite of vessel-related cardiovascular death, vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. ResultsA total of 441 patients (598 non-culprit vessels) met the inclusion criteria. Median vFFR was 0.85 (0.73–0.91). Revascularization was performed in 34.4% of vessels. Discordance between vFFR and actual treatment strategy occurred in 126 (21.1%) vessels. Freedom from VOCE was higher for concordant vessels (97.5%) as compared to discordant vessels (90.6%)(p = 0.003), particularly due to higher adverse event rates in discordant vessels with a vFFR ≤0.80 but deferred revascularization. ConclusionsIn STEMI patients with multivessel disease, discordance between vFFR reclassification and treatment strategy was observed in 21.1% of non-culprit vessels with an intermediate lesion and was associated with increased vessel-related adverse events.

Evaluation of intracoronary hemodynamics identifies perturbations in vorticity

Background and objective: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is highly prevalent and associated with adverse events. Challenges have emerged in the treatment of intermediate coronary artery stenoses. These lesions are often interrogated with fractional flow reserve (FFR) testing to determine if a stenosis is likely to be causative for ischemia in a cardiac territory. This invasive test requires insertion of a pressure wire into a coronary vessel. Recently computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has been used to noninvasively assess fractional flow reserve in vessels reconstructed from medical imaging data. However, many of these simulations are unable to provide additional information about intravascular hemodynamics, including velocity, endothelial shear stress (ESS), and vorticity. We hypothesized that vorticity, which has demonstrated utility in the assessment of ventricular and aortic diseases, would also be an important hemodynamic factor in CAD.Methods: Three-dimensional (3D), patient-specific coronary artery geometries that included all vessels &amp;gt;1 mm in diameter were created from angiography data obtained from 10 patients who underwent diagnostic angiography and FFR testing (n = 9). A massively parallel CFD solver (HARVEY) was used to calculate coronary hemodynamic parameters including pressure, velocity, ESS, and vorticity. These simulations were validated by comparing velocity flow fields from simulation to both velocities derived from in vitro particle image velocimetry and to invasively acquired pressure wire-based data from clinical testing.Results: There was strong agreement between findings from CFD simulations and particle image velocimetry experimental testing (p &amp;lt; 0.01). CFD-FFR was also highly correlated with invasively measured FFR (ρ = 0.77, p = 0.01) with an average error of 5.9 ± 0.1%. CFD-FFR also had a strong inverse correlation with the vorticity (ρ = -0.86, p = 0.001). Simulations to determine the effect of the coronary stenosis on intravascular hemodynamics demonstrated significant differences in velocity and vorticity (both p &amp;lt; 0.05). Further evaluation of an angiographically normal appearing non-FFR coronary vessel in patients with CAD also demonstrated differences in vorticity when compared with FFR vessels (p &amp;lt; 0.05).Conclusion: The use of highly accurate 3D CFD-derived intravascular hemodynamics provides additional information beyond pressure measurements that can be used to calculate FFR. Vorticity is one parameter that is modified by a coronary stenosis and appears to be abnormal in angiographically normal vessels in patients with CAD, highlighting a possible use-case in preventative screening for early coronary disease.

Diagnostic accuracy of angiography-based vessel fractional flow reserve after chronic coronary total occlusion recanalization

Abstract Background Angiography-Based Vessel FFR (vFFR) demonstrated a strong correlation with invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) in both a pre- and post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) setting. However, the role of vFFR and its correlation with post-PCI FFR in chronic coronary occlusion (CTO) has not been evaluated yet. We sought to investigate the diagnostic performance of post-PCI vFFR with post-PCI FFR as a reference in patients undergoing successful CTO PCI. Methods Between March 2016 and September 2019, a total of 80 patients from the FFR-SEARCH and FFR REACT studies underwent successful CTO recanalization [1,2]). A total of 50 patients (median age 66 (IQR: 56–74) years, 76% were male) were eligible for the analysis. Median FFR was 0.89 (IQR: 0.84–0.94) while median vFFR was 0.91 (IQR: 0.85–0.94). Suboptimal physiological results, defined as FFR and vFFR &amp;lt;0.90, were identified in 26 (52%) and in 21 (42%) patients, respectively. A strong correlation (r=0.79) was found between vFFR and FFR with a mean bias of 0.013±0.051. Receiver-operating characteristics curve analysis revealed an excellent accuracy of vFFR in predicting FFR &amp;lt;0.90 (AUC: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.93–1.00). Conclusion vFFR shows a good agreement with FFR and a high diagnostic accuracy for FFR ≤0.90 in patients undergoing successful PCI of a CTO lesion. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy Measures of Vessel Fractional Flow Reserve and Diastolic Pressure Ratio for Fractional Flow Reserve: A Single-Center Pooled Analysis of FAST EXTEND and FAST II Studies

Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy Measures of Vessel Fractional Flow Reserve and Diastolic Pressure Ratio for Fractional Flow Reserve: A Single-Center Pooled Analysis of FAST EXTEND and FAST II Studies

The prognostic value of angiography-based vessel fractional flow reserve after percutaneous coronary intervention: The FAST Outcome study

BackgroundVessel Fractional Flow Reserve (vFFR) as assessed by three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography has high correlation with pressure wire-based fractional flow reserve in both a pre- and post-PCI setting. The present study aims to assess the prognostic value of post-PCI vFFR on the incidence of target vessel failure (TVF), a composite endpoint of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 5-year follow up. MethodsPost-PCI vFFR was calculated after routine PCI in a total of 748 patients (832 vessels) with available orthogonal angiographic projections of the stented segment. ResultsMedian age was 65 (IQR 55–74) years, 18.2% were diabetic, and 29.1% presented with stable angina. Median post-PCI vFFR was 0.91 (IQR 0.86–0.95). Vessels were categorized into tertiles based on post-PCI vFFR: low (vFFR <0.88), middle (vFFR 0.88–0.93), and upper (vFFR ≥0.94). Vessels in the lower and middle tertile were more often LADs and had smaller stent diameters (p<0.001). Vessels in the lower and middle tertile had a higher risk of TVF as compared to vessels in the upper tertile (24.6% and 21.5% vs. 17.1%; adjusted HR 1.84 (95%CI 1.15–2.95), p = 0.011, and 1.58 (95%CI 1.02–2.45), p = 0.040) at 5-years follow-up. Additionally, vessels in the lower tertile had higher rates of TVR as compared to vessels in the higher tertile (12.6% vs. 6.5%, adjusted HR 1.93 (95%CI 1.06–3.53), p = 0.033). ConclusionLower post-PCI vFFR values are associated with a significantly increased risk of TVF and TVR at 5-years follow-up.

Vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) for the assessment of stenosis severity: the FAST II study.

Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is superior to angiography-guided PCI. The clinical uptake of FFR has been limited, however, by the need to advance a wire in the coronary artery, the additional time required and the need for hyperaemic agents which can cause patient discomfort. FFR derived from routine coronary angiography eliminates these issues. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance and accuracy of three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography (3D-QCA)-based vessel FFR (vFFR) compared to pressure wire-based FFR (≤0.80). The FAST II (Fast Assessment of STenosis severity) study was a prospective observational multicentre study designed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of vFFR compared to the reference standard (pressure wire-based FFR ≤0.80). A total of 334 patients from six centres were enrolled. Both site-determined and blinded independent core lab vFFR measurements were compared to FFR. The core lab vFFR was 0.83±0.09 and pressure wire-based FFR 0.83±0.08. A good correlation was found between core lab vFFR and pressure wire-based FFR (R=0.74; p<0.001; mean bias 0.0029±0.0642). vFFR had an excellent diagnostic accuracy in identifying lesions with an invasive wire-based FFR ≤0.80 (area under the curve [AUC] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-0.96; p<0.001). Positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of vFFR were 90%, 90%, 90%, 81% and 95%, respectively. 3D-QCA-based vFFR has excellent diagnostic performance to detect FFR ≤0.80. The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov under identifier NCT03791320.

Three-dimensional QCA-based vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) in Heart Team decision-making: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study

ObjectivesTo evaluate the feasibility of three-vessel three-dimensional (3D) quantitative coronary angiography (QCA)-based fractional flow reserve (FFR) computation in patients discussed within the Heart Team in whom the treatment decision was...

Diagnostic Accuracy of Coronary Angiography-Based Vessel Fractional Flow Reserve (vFFR) Virtual Stenting.

3D coronary angiography-based vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) proved to be an accurate diagnostic alternative to invasively measured pressure wire based fractional flow reserve (FFR). The ability to compute post-PCI vFFR using pre-PCI vFFR virtual stent analysis is unknown. We aimed to assess the feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of pre-PCI vFFR virtual stenting analysis (residual vFFR) with post-PCI FFR as a reference. This is an observational, single-center retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients from the FFR-SEARCH registry. We blindly calculated residual vFFR from pre-PCI angiograms and compared them to invasive pressure-wire based post-PCI FFR. Inclusion criteria involved presentation with either stable or unstable angina or non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), ≥1 significant stenosis in one of the epicardial coronary arteries (percentage diameter stenosis of >70% by QCA or hemodynamically relevant stenosis with FFR ≤0.80) and pre procedural angiograms eligible for vFFR analysis. Exclusion criteria comprised patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), coronary bypass grafts, cardiogenic shock or severe hemodynamic instability. Eighty-one pre-PCI residual vFFR measurements were compared to post-PCI FFR and post-PCI vFFR measurements. Mean residual vFFR was 0.91 ± 0.06, mean post-PCI FFR 0.91 ± 0.06 and mean post-PCI vFFR was 0.92 ± 0.05. Residual vFFR showed a high linear correlation (r = 0.84) and good agreement (mean difference (95% confidence interval): 0.005 (−0.002–0.012)) with post-PCI FFR, as well as with post-PCI-vFFR (r = 0.77, mean difference −0.007 (−0.015–0.0003)). Residual vFFR showed good accuracy in the identification of lesions with post-PCI FFR < 0.90 (sensitivity 94%, specificity 71%, area under the curve (AUC) 0.93 (95% CI: 0.86–0.99), p < 0.001). Virtual stenting using vFFR provided an accurate estimation of post-PCI FFR and post-PCI vFFR. Further studies are needed to prospectively validate a vFFR-guided PCI strategy.

Physiological and angiographic outcomes of PCI in calcified lesions after rotational atherectomy or intravascular lithotripsy

BackgroundPercutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in calcified coronary artery lesions are associated with impaired stent expansion, higher rate of periprocedural complications and cardiac mortality. Lesion preparation using calcium modifying techniques such as Rotational Atherectomy (RA) or Intravascular Lithotripsy (IVL) has been advocated. Studies comparing these technologies are lacking. We aimed to compare in-stent pressure gradients, evaluated by vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR), in calcific lesions treated using either RA or IVL. MethodsPatients undergoing either RA- or IVL-assisted PCI from two European centers were included. Propensity score matching (1:2) was performed to control for potential bias. Primary outcome was post-PCI in-stent pressure gradients calculated by vFFR (vFFRgrad). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients with complete functional revascularization defined as distal vFFR post-PCI (vFFRpost) ≥ 0.90. ResultsFrom a cohort of 210 patients, 105 matched patients (70 RA and 35 IVL) were included. Pre-PCI vFFR did not differ between groups (0.65 ± 0.13 RA and 0.67 ± 0.11 IVL). After PCI, in-stent pressure gradients were significantly lower in the IVL group (0.032 ± 0.026 vs 0.043 ± 0.026 in the RA group, p = 0.024). The proportions of vessels with functional complete revascularization was similar between the two groups (32.9% vs. 37.1% in the RA and IVL group, respectively; p = 0.669). ConclusionsCalcific lesions preparation with IVL is effective and resulted in lower in-stent pressure gradients compared to RA. Approximately one third of the patients undergoing PCI for a severely calcified lesion achieved functional revascularization with no difference between rotational RA and IVL.

CRT-100.80 Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy Measures of Vessel Fractional Flow Reserve and Diastolic Pressure Ratio for Fractional Flow Reserve: A Single-Center Pooled Analysis of FAST EXTEND and FAST II Studies

CRT-100.80 Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy Measures of Vessel Fractional Flow Reserve and Diastolic Pressure Ratio for Fractional Flow Reserve: A Single-Center Pooled Analysis of FAST EXTEND and FAST II Studies

Cost-Minimization Analysis for Cardiac Revascularization in 12 Health Care Systems Based on the EuroCMR/SPINS Registries

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the costs of a noninvasive cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)–guided strategy versus 2 invasive strategies with and without fractional flow reserve (FFR). BackgroundCoronary artery disease (CAD) is a major contributor to the public health burden. Stress perfusion CMR has excellent accuracy to detect CAD. International guidelines recommend as a first step noninvasive testing of patients in stable condition with known or suspected CAD. However, nonadherence in routine clinical practice is high. MethodsIn the EuroCMR (European Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance) registry (n = 3,647, 59 centers, 18 countries) and the U.S.-based SPINS (Stress-CMR Perfusion Imaging in the United States) registry (n = 2,349, 13 centers, 11 states), costs were calculated for 12 health care systems (8 in Europe, the United States, 2 in Latin America, and 1 in Asia). Costs included diagnostic examinations (CMR and x-ray coronary angiography [CXA] with and without FFR), revascularizations, and complications during 1-year follow-up. Seven subgroup analyses covered low- to high-risk cohorts. Patients with ischemia-positive CMR underwent CXA and revascularization at the treating physician’s discretion (CMR+CXA strategy). In the hypothetical invasive CXA+FFR strategy, costs were calculated for initial CXA and FFR in vessels with ≥50% stenoses, assuming the same proportion of revascularizations and complications as with the CMR+CXA strategy and FFR-positive rates as given in the published research. In the CXA-only strategy, costs included CXA and revascularizations of ≥50% stenoses. ResultsConsistent cost savings were observed for the CMR+CXA strategy compared with the CXA+FFR strategy in all 12 health care systems, ranging from 42% ± 20% and 52% ± 15% in low-risk EuroCMR and SPINS patients with atypical chest pain, respectively, to 31% ± 16% in high-risk SPINS patients with known CAD (P < 0.0001 vs 0 in all groups). Cost savings were even higher compared with CXA only, at 63% ± 11%, 73% ± 6%, and 52% ± 9%, respectively (P < 0.0001 vs 0 in all groups). ConclusionsIn 12 health care systems, a CMR+CXA strategy yielded consistent moderate to high cost savings compared with a hypothetical CXA+FFR strategy over the entire spectrum of risk. Cost savings were consistently high compared with CXA only for all risk groups.