Tian Xue, Tang Zhe
Emergency Critical Care Center, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100029, China.
J Thorac Dis. 2019 Feb;11(2):549-556. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2019.01.20.
Coronary angiography (CAG) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) are currently used to identify the lesions and guide the treatment of unstable angina (UA) patients. This study aims to compare the two methods and investigate factors affecting FFR value.
A total of 284 UA patients (296 coronary artery lesions) were enrolled from the Emergency Department of Anzhen Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical University from January 2017 to December 2017. CAG and FFR determination were performed in all patients, and the roles of these two methods in guiding the treatment of UA were compared and analyzed. The subjects were divided into FFR ≤0.8 group and FFR >0.8 group. The general data and laboratory findings were compared between these two groups, and the possible influential factors were analyzed. The statistical analysis of t-test or chi square test was done with SPSS 20.0 software.
Of 296 UA lesions, 160 (54.1%) had ≥75% angiographic stenosis and 136 (45.9%) had <75% angiographic stenosis; 168 (56.8%) had an FFR value of ≤0.8 and 128 (43.2%) had an FFR value >0.8. There was no significant difference between these two examination methods (P=0.508, χ=0.438). Further analysis showed that 43 (26.9%) of the 160 lesions with ≥75% stenosis had an FFR value of >0.8 and did not require PCI; 49 (38.3%) of the 128 lesions with 50-70% stenosis had an FFR value of ≤0.8 and needed PCI; 2 of 8 patients with <50% stenosis had an FFR value of ≤0.8 and needed PCI. If FFR was used as the "gold standard" of PCI, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of CAG in guiding PCI for UA were 69.6%, 66.4%, 73.1%, and 62.5%, respectively. Multivariate analysis with Logistic regression revealed low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and hypertension were independent risk factors of FFR <0.8 in UA patients.
CAG and FFR readings could be different. A combination of CAG and FFR may help to achieve more accurate and tailored treatment of UA. The history of hypertension is an independent risk factor for FFR in UA patients, and HDL is an independent protective factor.
冠状动脉造影(CAG)和血流储备分数(FFR)目前用于识别病变并指导不稳定型心绞痛(UA)患者的治疗。本研究旨在比较这两种方法,并调查影响FFR值的因素。
选取2017年1月至2017年12月首都医科大学附属安贞医院急诊科的284例UA患者(296处冠状动脉病变)。对所有患者进行CAG和FFR测定,并比较和分析这两种方法在指导UA治疗中的作用。将研究对象分为FFR≤0.8组和FFR>0.8组。比较两组的一般资料和实验室检查结果,并分析可能的影响因素。使用SPSS 20.0软件进行t检验或卡方检验的统计分析。
在296处UA病变中,160处(54.1%)造影显示狭窄≥75%,136处(45.9%)造影显示狭窄<75%;168处(56.8%)的FFR值≤0.8,128处(43.2%)的FFR值>0.8。这两种检查方法之间无显著差异(P=0.508,χ=0.438)。进一步分析显示,160处狭窄≥75%的病变中有43处(26.9%)的FFR值>0.8,不需要进行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI);128处狭窄50%-70%的病变中有49处(38.3%)的FFR值≤0.8,需要进行PCI;8例狭窄<50%的患者中有2例的FFR值≤0.8,需要进行PCI。如果将FFR用作PCI的“金标准”,CAG在指导UA患者PCI中的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为69.6%、66.4%、73.1%和62.5%。Logistic回归多因素分析显示,低高密度脂蛋白(HDL)和高血压是UA患者FFR<0.8的独立危险因素。
CAG和FFR的读数可能不同。CAG和FFR联合使用可能有助于实现对UA更准确、更有针对性的治疗。高血压病史是UA患者FFR的独立危险因素,HDL是独立的保护因素。