Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Heart Vascular Stroke Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chonnam National University Hospital, Gwangju, Republic of Korea.
Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Heart Vascular Stroke Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Sep 13;14(17):1888-1900. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2021.07.014.
This study sought to evaluate clinical implications of the residual fractional flow reserve (FFR) gradient after angiographically successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
Recent studies have demonstrated FFR measured after PCI is associated with clinical outcome after PCI. Although post-PCI FFR pull back tracings provide clinically relevant information on the residual FFR gradient, there are no objective criteria for assessing post-PCI FFR pull back tracings.
A total of 492 patients who underwent angiographically successful PCI and post-PCI FFR measurement with pull back tracings were analyzed. The presence of the major residual FFR gradient after PCI was assessed by both conventional visual interpretation of the pull back tracings and objective analysis using the instantaneous FFR gradient per unit time (dFFR(t)/dt) with a cutoff value of dFFR(t)/dt ≥0.035. Classification agreement between 2 independent operators for the presence of the major residual FFR gradient was compared before and after providing dFFR(t)/dt results. Target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization at 2 years, was compared according to the presence of the major residual FFR gradient.
Among the study population, 33.9% had the major residual FFR gradient defined by dFFR(t)/dt. The classification agreement between operators' assessments for the major residual FFR gradient increased with dFFR(t)/dt results compared with conventional visual assessment (Cohen's kappa = 0.633 to 0.819; P < 0.001; intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.776 to 0.901; P < 0.001). Patients with major residual FFR gradient were associated with a higher risk of TVF at 2 years than those without major residual FFR gradient (9.0% vs 2.2%; P < 0.001). Inclusion of the major residual FFR gradient to a clinical prediction model significantly increased discrimination and reclassification ability (C-index = 0.539 vs 0.771; P = 0.006; net reclassification improvement = 0.668; P = 0.007; integrated discrimination improvement = 0.033; P = 0.017) for TVF at 2 years. The presence of the major residual FFR gradient was independently associated with TVF at 2 years, regardless of post-PCI FFR or percent FFR increase (adjusted hazard ratio: 3.930; 95% confidence interval: 1.353-11.420; P = 0.012).
Objective analysis of post-PCI FFR pull back tracings using dFFR(t)/dt improved classification agreement on the presence of the major residual FFR gradient among operators. Presence of the major residual FFR gradient defined by dFFR(t)/dt after angiographically successful PCI was independently associated with an increased risk of TVF at 2 years. (Automated Algorithm Detecting Physiologic Major Stenosis and Its Relationship with Post-PCI Clinical Outcomes [Algorithm-PCI]; NCT04304677; Influence of FFR on the Clinical Outcome After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [COE-PERSPECTIVE]; NCT01873560).
本研究旨在评估经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)后残余的分数血流储备(FFR)梯度的临床意义。
最近的研究表明,PCI 后测量的 FFR 与 PCI 后的临床结果相关。尽管 PCI 后 FFR 拖曳轨迹提供了关于残余 FFR 梯度的临床相关信息,但目前还没有评估 PCI 后 FFR 拖曳轨迹的客观标准。
共分析了 492 例接受了成功的血管造影 PCI 和 PCI 后 FFR 测量的患者,使用拖曳轨迹进行分析。通过常规的拖曳轨迹视觉解释和使用瞬时 FFR 梯度/单位时间(dFFR(t)/dt)的客观分析来评估 PCI 后主要残余 FFR 梯度的存在,截断值为 dFFR(t)/dt≥0.035。在提供 dFFR(t)/dt 结果之前和之后,比较了 2 名独立操作人员对主要残余 FFR 梯度存在的分类一致性。根据主要残余 FFR 梯度的存在情况,比较了 2 年后的靶血管失败(TVF),复合终点为心脏死亡、靶血管心肌梗死或临床驱动的靶血管血运重建。
在研究人群中,33.9%的患者存在 dFFR(t)/dt 定义的主要残余 FFR 梯度。与传统的视觉评估相比,操作人员评估主要残余 FFR 梯度的分类一致性随着 dFFR(t)/dt 结果的增加而提高(Cohen's kappa 值为 0.633 至 0.819;P<0.001;组内相关系数为 0.776 至 0.901;P<0.001)。与没有主要残余 FFR 梯度的患者相比,存在主要残余 FFR 梯度的患者在 2 年内发生 TVF 的风险更高(9.0%比 2.2%;P<0.001)。将主要残余 FFR 梯度纳入临床预测模型显著提高了 2 年内 TVF 的区分能力和重新分类能力(C 指数分别为 0.539 比 0.771;P=0.006;净重新分类改善为 0.668;P=0.007;综合判别改善为 0.033;P=0.017)。无论 PCI 后 FFR 或 FFR 增加百分比如何,主要残余 FFR 梯度的存在与 2 年内 TVF 的发生均独立相关(调整后的危险比为 3.930;95%置信区间为 1.353 至 11.420;P=0.012)。
使用 dFFR(t)/dt 对 PCI 后 FFR 拖曳轨迹进行客观分析,提高了操作人员对主要残余 FFR 梯度存在的分类一致性。经血管造影成功 PCI 后,dFFR(t)/dt 定义的主要残余 FFR 梯度与 2 年内 TVF 的风险增加独立相关。(自动算法检测生理主要狭窄及其与 PCI 后临床结果的关系[Algorithm-PCI];NCT04304677;FFR 对经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后临床结果的影响[COE-PERSPECTIVE];NCT01873560)。