RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Landmark trials showed that invasive pressure measurement (Fractional Flow Reserve, FFR) was a better guide to coronary stenting than visual assessment. However, present-day interventionists have benefited from extensive research and personal experience of mapping anatomy to hemodynamics. AIMS: To determine if visual assessment of the angiogram performs as well as invasive measurement of coronary physiology. METHODS: 25 interventional cardiologists independently visually assessed the single vessel coronary disease of 200 randomized participants in The Objective Randomized Blinded Investigation with optimal medical Therapy of Angioplasty in stable angina trial (ORBITA). They gave a visual prediction of the FFR and Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio (iFR), denoted vFFR and viFR respectively. Each judged each lesion on 2 occasions, so that every lesion had 50 vFFR, and 50 viFR assessments. The group consensus visual estimates (vFFR-group and viFR-group) and individual cardiologists' visual estimates (vFFR-individual and viFR-individual) were tested alongside invasively measured FFR and iFR for their ability to predict the placebo-controlled reduction in stress echo ischemia with stenting. RESULTS: Placebo-controlled ischemia improvement with stenting was predicted by vFFR-group (p < 0.0001) and viFR-group (p < 0.0001), vFFR-individual (p < 0.0001) and viFR-individual (p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences between the predictive performance of the group visual estimates and their invasive counterparts: p = 0.53 for vFFR vs FFR and p = 0.56 for viFR vs iFR. CONCLUSION: Visual assessment of the angiogram by contemporary experts, provides significant additional information on the amount of ischaemia which can be relieved by placebo-controlled stenting in single vessel coronary artery disease.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/diagnóstico por imagen , Reserva del Flujo Fraccional Miocárdico , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Estenosis CoronariaRESUMEN
AbstrAct Aims To determine the agreement between sensor tipped microcatheter (MC) and pressure wire (PW)-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR). Methods and results Studies comparing FFR obtained from MC (FFRMC, Nav vus Microcatheter System, ACIST Medical Systems, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, USA) versus standard PW (FFRPW) were identified, and a meta-analysis of numerical and categorical agreement was performed. The relative levels of drift and device failure of MC and PW systems from each study were assessed. Six studies with 440 lesions (413 patients) were included. The mean overall bias between FFRMC and FFRPW was −0.029 (FFRMC lower). Bias and variance were greater for lesions with lower FFRPW (p<0.001). Using a cut-off of 0.80, 18 % of lesions were reclassified by FFRMC versus FFRPW (with 15 % being false positives). The difference in reported drift between FFRPW and FFRMC was small. Device failure was more common with MC than PW (7.1% vs 2%). Conclusion FFRMC systematically overestimates lesion severity, with increased bias in more severe lesions. Using FFRMC changes revascularisation guidance in approximately one out of every five cases. PW drift was similar between systems. Device failure was higher with MC. (AU)