Aubiniere-Robb Louise, Gosling Rebecca, Taylor Daniel J, Newman Tom, Rodney D, Ian Halliday Hose, Lawford Patricia V, Narracott Andrew J, Gunn Julian P, Morris Paul D
Mathematical Modelling in Medicine Group, Department of Infection, Immunity and Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Department of Cardiology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
Nat Cardiovasc Res. 2022 Jul;1(7):611-616. doi: 10.1038/s44161-022-00091-z. Epub 2022 Jul 4.
Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the current gold-standard invasive assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD). FFR reports coronary blood flow (CBF) as a fraction of a hypothetical and unknown normal value. Although used routinely to diagnose CAD and guide treatment, how accurately FFR predicts actual CBF changes remains unknown. Here we compared fractional CBF with the absolute CBF (aCBF in mL/min), measured with a computational method during standard angiography and pressure-wire assessment, on 203 diseased arteries (143 patients). We found a substantial correlation between the two measurements (r 0.89, Cohen's Kappa 0.71). Concordance between fractional and absolute CBF reduction was high when FFR was >0.80 (91%), but reduced when FFR was ≤0.80 (81%), 0.70-0.80 (68%) and, particularly 0.75-0.80 (62%). Discordance was associated with coronary microvascular resistance, vessel diameter and mass of myocardium subtended, all factors to which FFR is agnostic. Assessment of aCBF complements FFR, and may be valuable to assess CBF, particularly in cases within the FFR 'grey-zone'.
血流储备分数(FFR)是目前冠状动脉疾病(CAD)侵入性评估的金标准。FFR将冠状动脉血流量(CBF)报告为一个假设的、未知的正常值的分数。尽管FFR通常用于诊断CAD和指导治疗,但其预测实际CBF变化的准确性仍不清楚。在此,我们在203条病变动脉(143例患者)上,比较了标准血管造影和压力导丝评估期间通过计算方法测量的CBF分数与绝对CBF(以mL/min为单位的aCBF)。我们发现这两种测量之间存在显著相关性(r = 0.89,科恩kappa系数 = 0.71)。当FFR > 0.80时,CBF分数降低与绝对降低之间的一致性较高(91%),但当FFR ≤ 0.80(81%)、0.70 - 0.80(68%),尤其是0.75 - 0.80(62%)时,一致性降低。不一致性与冠状动脉微血管阻力、血管直径和所涉及心肌质量有关,而FFR对所有这些因素均不了解。aCBF评估对FFR起到补充作用,对于评估CBF可能具有重要价值,特别是在FFR“灰色区域”的病例中。