Cook Christopher M, Ahmad Yousif, Shun-Shin Matthew J, Nijjer Sukhjinder, Petraco Ricardo, Al-Lamee Rasha, Mayet Jamil, Francis Darrel P, Sen Sayan, Davies Justin E
From the International Centre for Circulatory Health, National Heart & Lung Institute, Imperial College NHS Trust, United Kingdom.
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Apr;9(4):e002988. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.002988.
Small drifts in intracoronary pressure measurements (±2 mm Hg) can affect stenosis categorization using pressure indices. This has not previously been assessed for fractional flow reserve (FFR), instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), and whole-cycle distal pressure/proximal pressure (Pd/Pa) indices.
Four hundred forty-seven stenoses were assessed with FFR, iFR, and whole-cycle Pd/Pa. Cut point values for significance were predefined as ≤0.8, <0.90, and <0.93, respectively. Pressure wire drift was simulated by offsetting the distal coronary pressure trace by ±2 mm Hg. FFR, iFR, and whole-cycle Pd/Pa indices were recalculated and stenosis misclassification quantified. Median (±median absolute deviation) values for FFR, iFR, and whole-cycle Pd/Pa were 0.81 (±0.11), 0.90 (±0.07), and 0.93 (±0.06), respectively. For the cut point of FFR, iFR, and whole-cycle Pd/Pa, 34.6% (155), 50.1% (224), and 62.2% (278) of values, respectively, lay within ±0.05 U. With ±2 mm Hg pressure wire drift, 21% (94), 25% (110), and 33% (148) of the study population were misclassified with FFR, iFR, and whole-cycle Pd/Pa, respectively. Both FFR and iFR had significantly lower misclassification than whole-cycle Pd/Pa (P<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the diagnostic performance of FFR and iFR (P=0.125).
In a substantial proportion of cases, small amounts of pressure wire drift are enough to cause stenoses to change classification. Whole-cycle Pd/Pa is more vulnerable to such reclassification than FFR and iFR.
冠状动脉内压力测量中的微小漂移(±2毫米汞柱)会影响使用压力指数对狭窄进行分类。此前尚未针对血流储备分数(FFR)、瞬时无波比值(iFR)和全周期远端压力/近端压力(Pd/Pa)指数进行过此类评估。
对447处狭窄进行了FFR、iFR和全周期Pd/Pa评估。显著性的切点值预先定义为分别≤0.8、<0.90和<0.93。通过将冠状动脉远端压力曲线偏移±2毫米汞柱来模拟压力导丝漂移。重新计算FFR、iFR和全周期Pd/Pa指数,并对狭窄的错误分类进行量化。FFR、iFR和全周期Pd/Pa的中位数(±中位数绝对偏差)值分别为0.81(±0.11)、0.90(±0.07)和0.93(±0.06)。对于FFR、iFR和全周期Pd/Pa的切点,分别有34.6%(155个)、50.1%(224个)和62.2%(278个)的值在±0.05单位范围内。在压力导丝漂移±2毫米汞柱的情况下,分别有21%(94例)、25%(110例)和33%(148例)的研究人群在FFR、iFR和全周期Pd/Pa评估中被错误分类。FFR和iFR的错误分类均显著低于全周期Pd/Pa(P<0.001)。FFR和iFR的诊断性能之间无统计学显著差异(P = 0.125)。
在相当一部分病例中,少量的压力导丝漂移足以导致狭窄改变分类。全周期Pd/Pa比FFR和iFR更容易因这种重新分类而受到影响。