Discordancia entre la reserva fraccional de flujo y el �ndice no hiper�mico con gu�a de presi�n de sensor �ptico. READI EPIC-14

Mario Sádaba Sagredo, Asier Subinas Elorriaga, Sebastián Romaní Méndez, Daniel Valcárcel Paz, Rocío Angulo Llanos, Carlos Lara García, A. Quirós, Erika Muñoz García, Ángel Sánchez Recalde, Javier Robles Alonso, F. L. Ruíz-Poveda, Francisco Javier Irazusta, A. Redondo, Rosa Alba Abellás Sequeiros y, Oriol Rodríguez-Leor
{"title":"Discordancia entre la reserva fraccional de flujo y el �ndice no hiper�mico con gu�a de presi�n de sensor �ptico. READI EPIC-14","authors":"Mario Sádaba Sagredo, Asier Subinas Elorriaga, Sebastián Romaní Méndez, Daniel Valcárcel Paz, Rocío Angulo Llanos, Carlos Lara García, A. Quirós, Erika Muñoz García, Ángel Sánchez Recalde, Javier Robles Alonso, F. L. Ruíz-Poveda, Francisco Javier Irazusta, A. Redondo, Rosa Alba Abellás Sequeiros y, Oriol Rodríguez-Leor","doi":"10.24875/recic.m24000448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction and objectives: Functional assessment of coronary stenosis severity with the piezo-electric sensor pressure wire has shown a discrepancy of up to 20% between hyperemic and nonhyperemic indexes. No data are available with fiber-optic pressure wires. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and factors related to the diagnostic discordance between these indexes with a fiber-optic pressure wire. Secondary aims were to assess diagnostic reproducibility in 2 consecutive measurements of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) and evaluate the drift rate. Methods: We conducted a prospective, observational multicenter study in patients undergoing functional assessment with a fiber-optic pressure wire. We took 2 consecutive measurements of the dPR (cutoff point 0.89) and FFR (cut-off point 0.80) in each lesion analyzed. The diagnostic correlation between 2 measurements with the same technique and between the 2 techniques (dPR and FFR) was assessed. Clinical and angiographic factors associated with discordance (FFR−/dPR+ and FFR+/dPR−) between the 2 techniques were analyzed. Results: We included 428 cases of stenosis (361 patients). Diagnostic reproducibility was 95.8% for the dPR, with a correlation coefficient between the 2 measurements (dPR1 and dPR2) of 0.974 ( P < .0001). For FFR, the diagnostic reproducibility was 94.9% with a correlation coefficient (FFR1 and FFR2) of 0.942 ( P < .0001). The diagnostic discordance was 18.2% (FFR+/dPR− 8.2% and FFR−/dPR+ 10%). Among the variables analyzed, the factors significantly associated with FFR−/dPR+ discordance in the multivariate analysis were hypertension and intracoronary adenosine. The only factors significantly associated with FFR+/dPR− discordance were age < 75 years and stenosis > 60%. The drift rate was 5.7%. Conclusions: Although FFR and dPR measurements with a fiber-optic pressure wire have excellent reproducibility and a low drift rate, the discordance rate remains similar to those in previous studies with a piezo-electric pressure wire. FFR−/dPR+ discordance is associated with intracoronary adenosine and hypertension. FFR+/dPR− discordance is related to age < 75 years old and stenosis > 60%.","PeriodicalId":507326,"journal":{"name":"REC: interventional cardiology","volume":"31 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"REC: interventional cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24875/recic.m24000448","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction and objectives: Functional assessment of coronary stenosis severity with the piezo-electric sensor pressure wire has shown a discrepancy of up to 20% between hyperemic and nonhyperemic indexes. No data are available with fiber-optic pressure wires. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and factors related to the diagnostic discordance between these indexes with a fiber-optic pressure wire. Secondary aims were to assess diagnostic reproducibility in 2 consecutive measurements of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) and evaluate the drift rate. Methods: We conducted a prospective, observational multicenter study in patients undergoing functional assessment with a fiber-optic pressure wire. We took 2 consecutive measurements of the dPR (cutoff point 0.89) and FFR (cut-off point 0.80) in each lesion analyzed. The diagnostic correlation between 2 measurements with the same technique and between the 2 techniques (dPR and FFR) was assessed. Clinical and angiographic factors associated with discordance (FFR−/dPR+ and FFR+/dPR−) between the 2 techniques were analyzed. Results: We included 428 cases of stenosis (361 patients). Diagnostic reproducibility was 95.8% for the dPR, with a correlation coefficient between the 2 measurements (dPR1 and dPR2) of 0.974 ( P < .0001). For FFR, the diagnostic reproducibility was 94.9% with a correlation coefficient (FFR1 and FFR2) of 0.942 ( P < .0001). The diagnostic discordance was 18.2% (FFR+/dPR− 8.2% and FFR−/dPR+ 10%). Among the variables analyzed, the factors significantly associated with FFR−/dPR+ discordance in the multivariate analysis were hypertension and intracoronary adenosine. The only factors significantly associated with FFR+/dPR− discordance were age < 75 years and stenosis > 60%. The drift rate was 5.7%. Conclusions: Although FFR and dPR measurements with a fiber-optic pressure wire have excellent reproducibility and a low drift rate, the discordance rate remains similar to those in previous studies with a piezo-electric pressure wire. FFR−/dPR+ discordance is associated with intracoronary adenosine and hypertension. FFR+/dPR− discordance is related to age < 75 years old and stenosis > 60%.
用光学传感器压力导引器测量分流量储备与非心搏过速指数之间的不一致。READI EPIC-14
简介和目的:使用压电传感器压力线对冠状动脉狭窄严重程度进行功能评估显示,充血指数和非充血指数之间的差异高达 20%。目前还没有光纤压力线的数据。本研究的目的是评估纤维光导压力线这些指数之间诊断不一致的发生率和相关因素。次要目的是评估连续两次测量血流储备分数(FFR)和舒张压比值(dPR)的诊断再现性,并评估漂移率。方法:我们对使用光纤压力导线进行功能评估的患者进行了一项前瞻性多中心观察研究。我们对分析的每个病灶连续测量了两次 dPR(临界点 0.89)和 FFR(临界点 0.80)。我们评估了同一技术的两次测量之间以及两种技术(dPR 和 FFR)之间的诊断相关性。分析了与两种技术不一致(FFR-/dPR+ 和 FFR+/dPR-)相关的临床和血管造影因素。结果:我们纳入了 428 例血管狭窄病例(361 名患者)。dPR 的诊断再现性为 95.8%,2 次测量(dPR1 和 dPR2)之间的相关系数为 0.974 ( P < .0001)。FFR的诊断再现性为94.9%,相关系数(FFR1和FFR2)为0.942(P < .0001)。诊断不一致性为 18.2%(FFR+/dPR- 8.2%,FFR-/dPR+ 10%)。在分析的变量中,多变量分析中与 FFR-/dPR+ 不一致显著相关的因素是高血压和冠脉内腺苷。唯一与 FFR+/dPR- 不一致有明显相关性的因素是年龄小于 75 岁和狭窄程度大于 60%。漂移率为 5.7%。结论:虽然使用光纤压力线进行的 FFR 和 dPR 测量具有良好的可重复性和较低的漂移率,但不一致率仍与之前使用压电压力线进行的研究相似。FFR-/dPR+ 不一致与冠脉内腺苷和高血压有关。FFR+/dPR-不一致与年龄小于 75 岁和狭窄程度大于 60% 有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信