Lee Joo Myung, Hwang Doyeon, Park Jonghanne, Tong Yaliang, Koo Bon-Kwon
Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Heart Vascular Stroke Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Int J Cardiol. 2017 Sep 15;243:91-94. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.05.114. Epub 2017 Jun 2.
Invasive physiologic indices, such as fractional flow reserve (FFR) or instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), are used in clinical practice. We sought to evaluate the physiological mechanism of discordance between iFR and FFR using N-ammonia positron emission tomography (PET)-derived quantitative parameters.
Data from 113 patients, who underwent both N-ammonia PET and invasive FFR and iFR measurement, were analyzed. Coronary circulatory indices, such as myocardial blood flow (MBF), coronary flow reserve (CFR), microvascular resistance, and trans-stenosis resistance were compared between patients with discordant results (low FFR despite high iFR) and those with concordant abnormal results (low FFR and low iFR), using cut-off values of FFR≤0.80 and iFR<0.90, respectively.
Among the 113 patients, 39 (34.5%) showed concordant abnormal results in FFR and iFR measurement, and 17 (15.0%) showed discordant results between FFR and iFR (low FFR and high iFR). In comparison of coronary circulatory indices between discordant group and concordant abnormal group, both showed similar resting MBF (p=0.360), however, the discordant group showed higher hyperemic MBF and CFR, compared with the concordant abnormal group (p=0.003 and p<0.001, respectively). Trans-stenosis resistance was lower in the discordant group, in both resting and hyperemic status (p<0.001 for both). Although the discordant group showed higher resting microvascular resistance, these patients showed significantly higher reduction of microvascular resistance at hyperemia.
Patients with low FFR despite high iFR showed significant differences in microvascular resistance, trans-stenosis resistance, absolute MBF, and CFR compared to those with concordant abnormal results between FFR and iFR.
侵入性生理指标,如血流储备分数(FFR)或瞬时无波比值(iFR),已应用于临床实践。我们试图利用N-氨正电子发射断层扫描(PET)得出的定量参数来评估iFR与FFR不一致的生理机制。
分析了113例同时接受N-氨PET检查以及侵入性FFR和iFR测量的患者的数据。分别采用FFR≤0.80和iFR<0.90的临界值,比较结果不一致(iFR高但FFR低)的患者与结果一致且异常(FFR低且iFR低)的患者之间的冠状动脉循环指标,如心肌血流量(MBF)、冠状动脉血流储备(CFR)、微血管阻力和跨狭窄阻力。
在113例患者中,39例(34.5%)在FFR和iFR测量中结果一致且异常,17例(15.0%)在FFR和iFR之间结果不一致(FFR低但iFR高)。在不一致组和一致异常组之间比较冠状动脉循环指标时,两者静息MBF相似(p=0.360),然而,与一致异常组相比,不一致组的充血MBF和CFR更高(分别为p=0.003和p<0.001)。在静息和充血状态下,不一致组的跨狭窄阻力均较低(两者p<0.001)。尽管不一致组静息微血管阻力较高,但这些患者在充血时微血管阻力的降低幅度明显更大。
与FFR和iFR结果一致且异常的患者相比,iFR高但FFR低的患者在微血管阻力、跨狭窄阻力、绝对MBF和CFR方面存在显著差异。