Nakamura Masato, Yamagishi Masakazu, Ueno Takafumi, Hara Kazuhiro, Ishiwata Sugao, Itoh Tomonori, Hamanaka Ichiro, Wakatsuki Tetsuzo, Sugano Teruyasu, Kawai Kazuya, Akasaka Takashi, Tanaka Nobuhiro, Kimura Takeshi
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Ohashi Medical Center, Toho University School of Medicine, 2-17-6 Ohashi, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, 153-8515, Japan,
Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2014 Oct;29(4):300-8. doi: 10.1007/s12928-014-0259-3. Epub 2014 Mar 25.
The fractional flow reserve (FFR) is considered to be a reliable index for the assessment of clinically relevant coronary artery stenosis. However, mismatch in assessing the severity of coronary stenosis between coronary angiography and the FFR has been pointed out. The cardiovascular intervention therapeutics (CVIT)-DEFER registry is a prospective multicenter registry study that has enrolled 3,228 consecutive patients among 3,804 patients with angiographically moderate coronary artery lesions in whom FFR analysis was clinically indicated. The demographic and angiographic parameters associated with an FFR ≤0.8 were analyzed, and the incidence of discrepancy between the angiographic severity of coronary stenosis and the FFR was assessed. Based on the visual assessment, 1,609 (42.9%) lesions were categorized as showing 50% stenosis, 1,882 lesions (50.2%) as 75% stenosis, and 257 lesions (6.9%) as 90% stenosis. Angiographic-FFR "mismatch," which was defined as visual stenosis ≥75% with FFR >0.80, was found in 43.4% of lesions, while reverse angiographic mismatch (visual stenosis <75% with FFR ≤0.8) was found in 23.2%. The independent predictors for "angiographic-FFR mismatch" were the presence of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) history, one-vessel disease, non-left anterior descending artery (LAD) location, non-diffuse lesion, non-ostial lesion, and non-tandem lesion. Conversely, "reverse angiographic mismatch" was independently associated with the multivessel disease, LAD location, and diffuse lesion. The FFR is not only influenced by luminal stenosis but also by coronary artery morphology and the amount of jeopardized myocardium. Angiographic-FFR mismatch is frequent in patients with moderate coronary stenosis, which suggests the clinical importance of using physiological assessment to guide PCI.
血流储备分数(FFR)被认为是评估临床相关冠状动脉狭窄的可靠指标。然而,冠状动脉造影和FFR在评估冠状动脉狭窄严重程度方面存在不匹配的情况已被指出。心血管介入治疗(CVIT)-DEFER注册研究是一项前瞻性多中心注册研究,在3804例冠状动脉造影显示中度病变且临床提示需进行FFR分析的患者中,连续纳入了3228例患者。分析了与FFR≤0.8相关的人口统计学和血管造影参数,并评估了冠状动脉狭窄的血管造影严重程度与FFR之间的差异发生率。基于视觉评估,1609个(42.9%)病变被分类为显示50%狭窄,1882个病变(50.2%)为75%狭窄,257个病变(6.9%)为90%狭窄。血管造影-FFR“不匹配”定义为视觉狭窄≥75%而FFR>0.80,在43.4%的病变中被发现,而反向血管造影不匹配(视觉狭窄<75%而FFR≤0.8)在23.2%的病变中被发现。“血管造影-FFR不匹配”的独立预测因素包括经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)史、单支血管病变、非左前降支(LAD)部位、非弥漫性病变、非开口处病变和非串联病变。相反,“反向血管造影不匹配”与多支血管病变、LAD部位和弥漫性病变独立相关。FFR不仅受管腔狭窄影响,还受冠状动脉形态和心肌损伤量的影响。冠状动脉中度狭窄患者中血管造影-FFR不匹配很常见,这表明使用生理评估来指导PCI具有临床重要性。