The Influence of Lesion Location on the Diagnostic Accuracy of Adenosine-Free Coronary Pressure Wire Measurements

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Yuhei Kobayashi ; MD^a ; ^b ; Nils P. Johnson ; MD ; MS^c ; Colin Berry ; MBChB ; PhD^d ; ^e ; Bernard De Bruyne ; MD ; PhD^f ; K. Lance Gould ; MD^c ; Allen Jeremias ; MD ; MSc^g ; ^h ; Keith G. Oldroyd ; MBChB ; MD^d ; Nico H.J. Pijls ; MD ; PhDⁱ ; ^j ; William F. Fearon ; MD^a ; ^b ; ^{wfearon@stanford.edu} ; on behalf of the CONTRAST Study Investigators
• 关键词：contrast fractional flow reserve ; fractional flow reserve ; instantaneous wave-free ratio
• 刊名：JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：12 December 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：9
• 期：23
• 页码：2390-2399
• 全文大小：1321 K
• 卷排序：9

文摘

This work compares the diagnostic performance of adenosine-free coronary pressure wire indices based on lesion location.BackgroundSeveral adenosine-free coronary pressure wire indices have been proposed to assess the functional significance of coronary artery lesions; however, there is a theoretical concern that lesion location and the mass of perfused myocardium may affect diagnostic performance.MethodsA total of 763 patients were prospectively enrolled from 12 institutions. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and contrast-based FFR (cFFR) were obtained during adenosine-induced maximal hyperemia and contrast-induced submaximal hyperemia respectively, whereas the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and distal pressure/aortic pressure (Pd/Pa) were obtained at rest. Using an FFR of ≤0.80 as a reference standard, the diagnostic accuracy of each index was compared based on lesion location (left main or proximal left anterior descending artery [LM/pLAD] compared with other lesion locations).ResultsThe median FFR, cFFR, iFR, and Pd/Pa were 0.81 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.74 to 0.87), 0.86 (IQR: 0.79 to 0.91), 0.90 (IQR: 0.85 to 0.94), and 0.92 (IQR: 0.88 to 0.95), respectively. The cFFR, iFR, and Pd/Pa were less accurate in LM/pLAD compared with other lesion locations (cFFR: 80.3% vs. 87.8%; iFR: 73.3% vs. 81.8%; Pd/Pa: 71.4% vs. 81.1%, respectively). By receiver-operating characteristics curve analysis, cFFR provided better diagnostic accuracy than resting indices regardless of lesion location (p ≤0.0001 vs. iFR and Pd/Pa for both groups).ConclusionsThe cFFR, iFR, and Pd/Pa are less accurate in LM/pLAD compared with other lesion locations, likely related to the larger amount of myocardium supplied by LM/pLAD. Nevertheless, cFFR provides the best diagnostic accuracy among the adenosine-free indices, regardless of lesion location.