Long-Term Changes in Invasive Physiological Pressure Indices of Stenosis Severity Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Muhammad Sabbah, Francis R Joshi, Mikko Minkkinen, Lene Holmvang, Hans-Henrik Tilsted, Frants Pedersen, Kiril Ahtarovski, Rikke Sørensen, Niels Thue Olsen, Lars Søndergaard, Ole De Backer, Thomas Engstrøm, Jacob Lønborg
{"title":"Long-Term Changes in Invasive Physiological Pressure Indices of Stenosis Severity Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.","authors":"Muhammad Sabbah,&nbsp;Francis R Joshi,&nbsp;Mikko Minkkinen,&nbsp;Lene Holmvang,&nbsp;Hans-Henrik Tilsted,&nbsp;Frants Pedersen,&nbsp;Kiril Ahtarovski,&nbsp;Rikke Sørensen,&nbsp;Niels Thue Olsen,&nbsp;Lars Søndergaard,&nbsp;Ole De Backer,&nbsp;Thomas Engstrøm,&nbsp;Jacob Lønborg","doi":"10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.121.011331","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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%), <i>P</i>=0.50. RFR improved significantly from 0.88 (0.83%-0.93) at baseline to 0.92 (0.83-0.95) at follow-up, <i>P</i>=0.003, whereas FFR remained unchanged, 0.84 (0.81-0.89) versus 0.86 (0.78-0.90), <i>P</i>=0.72. At baseline, 11 out of 50 (22%) lesions were FFR-positive, whereas 15 out of 50 (30%) were positive at follow-up, <i>P</i>=0.219. Corresponding numbers for RFR were 23 out of 36 (64%) at baseline and 12 out of 36 (33%) at follow-up, <i>P</i>=0.003.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":516631,"journal":{"name":"Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions","volume":" ","pages":"e011331"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.121.011331","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/11/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Background: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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%), P=0.50. RFR improved significantly from 0.88 (0.83%-0.93) at baseline to 0.92 (0.83-0.95) at follow-up, P=0.003, whereas FFR remained unchanged, 0.84 (0.81-0.89) versus 0.86 (0.78-0.90), P=0.72. At baseline, 11 out of 50 (22%) lesions were FFR-positive, whereas 15 out of 50 (30%) were positive at follow-up, P=0.219. Corresponding numbers for RFR were 23 out of 36 (64%) at baseline and 12 out of 36 (33%) at follow-up, P=0.003.

Conclusions: 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.

经导管主动脉瓣植入术后血管狭窄严重程度有创生理压力指标的长期变化。
背景:严重主动脉瓣狭窄的患者经常并发冠状动脉疾病。侵入性充血和非充血压力指数用于评估冠状动脉疾病的严重程度,但尚未在严重主动脉狭窄的情况下进行评估。方法:我们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(RFR)的病变再分类率,采用常规临床截断值FFR≤0.80,RFR≤0.89。这是正在进行的noto -3试验(第三北欧主动脉瓣介入试验)的一个子研究。采用二维定量冠状动脉分析评估血管造影病变严重程度的变化。结果:纳入40例患者,测量了50个病变的FFR。在32例患者(36个病变)中,RFR也被测量。从基线到随访,内径狭窄无显著变化,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。在基线时,50例病变中有11例(22%)为ffr阳性,而随访时50例病变中有15例(30%)为阳性,P=0.219。相应的RFR在基线时为23 / 36(64%),在随访时为12 / 36 (33%),P=0.003。结论:在严重主动脉瓣狭窄患者中,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,与RFR相比,6个月随访时的重分率较低。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信