Cardiovascular Institute, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Ferrara, Cona, Italy.
Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, University Hospital Santa Maria alle Scotte, Siena, Italy.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Aug 13;11(15):1482-1491. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.04.037. Epub 2018 May 23.
The aims of the ERIS (Evolving Routine Standards of FFR Use) study are to describe the current use of invasive coronary physiology assessment and discern the reasons for its nonuse in daily practice.
Adoption of coronary physiology guidance in the catheterization laboratory varies among countries, centers, and operators.
ERIS is an investigator-driven, nationwide, prospective, cross-sectional study involving 76 Italian catheterization laboratories. Each center had a 60-day window to include consecutive cases that fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two pre-specified groups were enrolled: 1) patients who had operators apply fractional flow reserve or instantaneous wave-free ratio assessment (physiology assessment group); and 2) patients who had operators decide not to perform fractional flow reserve or instantaneous wave-free ratio assessment, although the patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria (visual estimation group).
Overall, 1,858 cases were included (physiology assessment group, n = 1,177; visual estimation group, n = 681). Physiology-based guidance was used in 7% and 13% of the total volume of angiographic and percutaneous coronary interventions, respectively. Its use was in line with European and American guidelines in 48% of the cases (n = 569). Physiology guidance was used in a consistent number of patients with acute coronary syndromes (n = 529 [45%]). The main reason for not using physiology guidance was the operator's confidence that clinical and angiographic data alone were sufficient.
Use of coronary physiology assessment in daily practice meets the current guideline indications in approximately 50% of cases. The major limiting factor for the adoption of physiology guidance was the operator's confidence in visual assessment alone. (Evolving Routine Standards of FFR Use [ERIS]; NCT03082989).
ERIS(血流储备分数指导下经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的演变)研究旨在描述目前对有创冠状动脉生理学评估的应用情况,并找出其在日常实践中未被应用的原因。
各国、各中心和术者对冠状动脉生理学指导的应用情况存在差异。
ERIS 是一项由研究者驱动的、全国性的、前瞻性的、横断面研究,涉及 76 家意大利导管室。每个中心有 60 天的时间窗口,纳入符合纳入和排除标准的连续病例。纳入了两个预先指定的组:1)行血流储备分数或瞬时无波比评估的患者(生理学评估组);2)行血流储备分数或瞬时无波比评估,尽管患者符合纳入和排除标准但术者决定不进行评估的患者(目测评估组)。
共纳入 1858 例患者(生理学评估组 n=1177;目测评估组 n=681)。基于生理学的指导在血管造影和经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的总工作量中分别占 7%和 13%。其应用符合欧洲和美国指南的比例为 48%(n=569)。在急性冠状动脉综合征患者中,同样数量的患者使用了生理学指导(n=529 [45%])。不使用生理学指导的主要原因是术者认为仅临床和血管造影数据就足够了。
在日常实践中,冠状动脉生理学评估的应用约符合当前指南适应证的 50%。采用生理学指导的主要限制因素是术者对单纯目测评估的信心。(血流储备分数指导下经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的演变[ERIS];NCT03082989)。