Sabbah Muhammad, Joshi Francis R, Minkkinen Mikko, Holmvang Lene, Tilsted Hans-Henrik, Pedersen Frants, Ahtarovski Kiril, Sørensen Rikke, Thue Olsen Niels, Søndergaard Lars, De Backer Ole, Engstrøm Thomas, Lønborg Jacob
Department of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Denmark (M.S., F.R.J., M.M., L.H., H.-H.T., F.P., K.A., R.S., L.S., O.D.B., T.E., J.L.).
Department of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev and Gentofte, Denmark (N.T.O.).
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 Jan;15(1):e011331. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.121.011331. Epub 2021 Nov 23.
Patients with severe aortic stenosis frequently have coexisting coronary artery disease. Invasive hyperemic and nonhyperemic pressure indices are used to assess coronary artery disease severity but have not been evaluated in the context of severe aortic stenosis.
We compared lesion reclassification rates of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) measured before and 6 months after transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the conventional clinical cutoffs of ≤0.80 for FFR and ≤0.89 for RFR. This was a substudy of the ongoing NOTION-3 trial (Third Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention). Two-dimensional quantitative coronary analysis was used to assess changes in angiographic lesion severity.
Forty patients were included contributing 50 lesions in which FFR was measured. In 32 patients (36 lesions), RFR was also measured. There was no significant change in diameter stenosis from baseline to follow-up, 49.8% (42.9%-57.1%) versus 52.3% (43.2%-57.8%), =0.50. RFR improved significantly from 0.88 (0.83%-0.93) at baseline to 0.92 (0.83-0.95) at follow-up, =0.003, whereas FFR remained unchanged, 0.84 (0.81-0.89) versus 0.86 (0.78-0.90), =0.72. At baseline, 11 out of 50 (22%) lesions were FFR-positive, whereas 15 out of 50 (30%) were positive at follow-up, =0.219. Corresponding numbers for RFR were 23 out of 36 (64%) at baseline and 12 out of 36 (33%) at follow-up, =0.003.
In patients with severe aortic stenosis, physiological assessment of coronary lesions with FFR before transcatheter aortic valve implantation leads to lower reclassification rate at 6-month follow-up, compared with RFR.
重度主动脉瓣狭窄患者常合并冠状动脉疾病。有创充血和非充血压力指标用于评估冠状动脉疾病的严重程度,但尚未在重度主动脉瓣狭窄的背景下进行评估。
我们使用FFR≤0.80和RFR≤0.89的传统临床临界值,比较经导管主动脉瓣植入术前和术后6个月测量的血流储备分数(FFR)和静息全周期比率(RFR)的病变重新分类率。这是正在进行的NOTION-3试验(第三次北欧主动脉瓣干预试验)的一项子研究。二维定量冠状动脉分析用于评估血管造影病变严重程度的变化。
纳入40例患者,共测量50处病变的FFR。32例患者(36处病变)也测量了RFR。从基线到随访,直径狭窄率无显著变化,分别为49.8%(42.9%-57.1%)和52.3%(43.2%-57.8%),P=0.50。RFR从基线时的0.88(0.83%-0.93)显著改善至随访时的0.92(0.83-0.95),P=0.003,而FFR保持不变,分别为0.84(0.81-0.89)和0.86(0.78-0.90),P=0.72。基线时,50处病变中有11处(22%)FFR阳性,而随访时50处中有15处(30%)阳性,P=0.219。RFR的相应数字在基线时为36处中的23处(64%),随访时为36处中的12处(33%),P=0.003。
在重度主动脉瓣狭窄患者中,与RFR相比,经导管主动脉瓣植入术前用FFR对冠状动脉病变进行生理评估,在6个月随访时导致的重新分类率更低。