Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Coronary Physiology Assessment for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Stable Ischemic Heart Disease

  • Coronary Heart Disease (S. Virani and S. Naderi, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Atherosclerosis Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Coronary artery disease is the most prevalent cardiovascular disease in the USA. In the majority of settings, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for stable coronary artery disease (CAD) reduces angina and improves quality of life; however, it does not improve survival and is associated with infrequent but serious complications. Selection of appropriate patients and coronary lesions for revascularization with PCI is crucial to maximize the benefit-to-risk ratio. The assessment of the hemodynamic significance of intermediate coronary lesions has been shown to improve outcomes and reduce healthcare costs. The current review summarizes the existing evidence regarding the physiological assessment of coronary lesions, with emphasis on fractional flow reserve, the most common invasive hemodynamic assessment modality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, Arnett DK, Blaha MJ, Cushman M, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2016 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2016;133:e38–360.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nallamothu BK, Bates ER. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction: is timing (almost) everything? Am J Cardiol. 2003;92:824–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Boersma E, Maas AC, Deckers JW, Simoons ML. Early thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction: reappraisal of the golden hour. Lancet. 1996;348:771–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, Hartigan PM, Maron DJ, Kostuk WJ, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1503–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chung SC, Hlatky MA, Faxon D, Ramanathan K, Adler D, Mooradian A, et al. The effect of age on clinical outcomes and health status BARI 2D (Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation in Type 2 Diabetes). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:810–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Group BDS, Frye RL, August P, Brooks MM, Hardison RM, Kelsey SF, et al. A randomized trial of therapies for type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:2503–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Henderson RA, Pocock SJ, Clayton TC, Knight R, Fox KA, Julian DG, et al. Seven-year outcome in the RITA-2 trial: coronary angioplasty versus medical therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42:1161–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Poole-Wilson PA, Lubsen J, Kirwan BA, van Dalen FJ, Wagener G, Danchin N, et al. Effect of long-acting nifedipine on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity in patients with stable angina requiring treatment (ACTION trial): randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;364:849–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Steg PG, Greenlaw N, Tardif JC, Tendera M, Ford I, Kaab S, et al. Women and men with stable coronary artery disease have similar clinical outcomes: insights from the international prospective CLARIFY registry. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:2831–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Shaw LJ, Heller GV, Casperson P, Miranda-Peats R, Slomka P, Friedman J, et al. Gated myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography in the clinical outcomes utilizing revascularization and aggressive drug evaluation (COURAGE) trial, Veterans Administration Cooperative study no. 424. J Nucl Cardiol. 2006;13:685–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Siebert U, Ikeno F, van’ t Veer M, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:213–24. First randomized trial of its kind comparing angiography versus FFR-driven revascularization.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fearon WF, Bornschein B, Tonino PA, Gothe RM, Bruyne BD, Pijls NH, et al. Economic evaluation of fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease. Circulation. 2010;122:2545–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Toth G, Hamilos M, Pyxaras S, Mangiacapra F, Nelis O, De Vroey F, et al. Evolving concepts of angiogram: fractional flow reserve discordances in 4000 coronary stenoses. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:2831–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Yaeger IA. A multi-artery Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) approach for handling coronary stenosis-stenosis interaction in the multi-vessel disease (MVD) arena. Int J Cardiol. 2016;203:807–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pijls NH, van Son JA, Kirkeeide RL, De Bruyne B, Gould KL. Experimental basis of determining maximum coronary, myocardial, and collateral blood flow by pressure measurements for assessing functional stenosis severity before and after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Circulation. 1993;87:1354–67. First report establishing the basis of FFR.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gould KL, Lipscomb K. Effects of coronary stenoses on coronary flow reserve and resistance. Am J Cardiol. 1974;34:48–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gould KL, Johnson NP, Kaul S, Kirkeeide RL, Mintz GS, Rentrop KP, et al. Patient selection for elective revascularization to reduce myocardial infarction and mortality: new lessons from randomized trials, coronary physiology, and statistics. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8. Excellent review of the concepts discussed in the current paper.

  18. Bech GJ, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, de Muinck ED, Hoorntje JC, Escaned J, et al. Fractional flow reserve to determine the appropriateness of angioplasty in moderate coronary stenosis: a randomized trial. Circulation. 2001;103:2928–34. One of the landmark trials on the subject.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. De Bruyne B, Fearon WF, Pijls NH, Barbato E, Tonino P, Piroth Z, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1208–17. The more recent landmark randomized trial.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Berry C, van’t Veer M, Witt N, Kala P, Bocek O, Pyxaras SA, et al. VERIFY (VERification of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve for the Assessment of Coronary Artery Stenosis Severity in EverydaY Practice): a multicenter study in consecutive patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:1421–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Matsumoto H, Nakatsuma K, Shimada T, Ushimaru S, Mikuri M, Yamazaki T, et al. Effect of caffeine on intravenous adenosine-induced hyperemia in fractional flow reserve measurement. J Invasive Cardiol. 2014;26:580–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lim WH, Koo BK, Nam CW, Doh JH, Park JJ, Yang HM, et al. Variability of fractional flow reserve according to the methods of hyperemia induction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;85:970–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Barbato E, Bartunek J, Bech JW, Wijns W, et al. Intracoronary and intravenous adenosine 5′-triphosphate, adenosine, papaverine, and contrast medium to assess fractional flow reserve in humans. Circulation. 2003;107:1877–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Prasad A, Zareh M, Doherty R, Gopal A, Vora H, Somma K, et al. Use of regadenoson for measurement of fractional flow reserve. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;83:369–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stolker JM, Lim MJ, Shavelle DM, Morris DL, Angiolillo DJ, Guzman LA, et al. Pooled comparison of regadenoson versus adenosine for measuring fractional flow reserve and coronary flow in the catheterization laboratory. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2015;16:266–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. van Nunen LX, Lenders GD, Schampaert S, van’t Veer M, Wijnbergen I, Brueren GR, et al. Single bolus intravenous regadenoson injection versus central venous infusion of adenosine for maximum coronary hyperaemia in fractional flow reserve measurement. EuroIntervention. 2014.

  27. Pijls NH, van Nunen LX. Fractional flow reserve, maximum hyperemia, adenosine, and regadenoson. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2015;16:263–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Pijls NH. Fractional flow reserve to guide coronary revascularization. Circ J. 2013;77:561–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nishi T, Kitahara H, Iwata Y, Fujimoto Y, Nakayama T, Takahara M, et al. Efficacy of combined administration of intracoronary papaverine plus intravenous adenosine 5′-triphosphate in assessment of fractional flow reserve. J Cardiol. 2016.

  30. Jeremias A, Whitbourn RJ, Filardo SD, Fitzgerald PJ, Cohen DJ, Tuzcu EM, et al. Adequacy of intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine-induced maximal coronary hyperemia for fractional flow reserve measurements. Am Heart J. 2000;140:651–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Adjedj J, Toth GG, Johnson NP, Pellicano M, Ferrara A, Flore V, et al. Intracoronary adenosine: dose-response relationship with hyperemia. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:1422–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Waksman R, Legutko J, Singh J, Orlando Q, Marso S, Schloss T, et al. FIRST: fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound relationship study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:917–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kang SJ, Lee JY, Ahn JM, Mintz GS, Kim WJ, Park DW, et al. Validation of intravascular ultrasound-derived parameters with fractional flow reserve for assessment of coronary stenosis severity. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:65–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lim HS, Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Yong AS, Lee BK, Pijls NH, et al. The impact of age on fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) trial substudy. Int J Cardiol. 2014;177:66–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kang SJ, Ahn JM, Han S, Lee JY, Kim WJ, Park DW, et al. Sex differences in the visual-functional mismatch between coronary angiography or intravascular ultrasound versus fractional flow reserve. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:562–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Li J, Rihal CS, Matsuo Y, Elrashidi MY, Flammer AJ, Lee MS, et al. Sex-related differences in fractional flow reserve-guided treatment. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:662–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Leone AM, Scalone G, De Maria GL, Tagliaferro F, Gardi A, Clemente F, et al. Efficacy of contrast medium induced Pd/Pa ratio in predicting functional significance of intermediate coronary artery stenosis assessed by fractional flow reserve: insights from the RINASCI study. EuroIntervention. 2014.

  38. Johnson NP, Kirkeeide RL, Gould KL. Is discordance of coronary flow reserve and fractional flow reserve due to methodology or clinically relevant coronary pathophysiology? JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5:193–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Nijjer SS, Sen S, Petraco R, Davies JE. Advances in coronary physiology. Circ J. 2015;79:1172–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Min JK, Leipsic J, Pencina MJ, Berman DS, Koo BK, van Mieghem C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of fractional flow reserve from anatomic CT angiography. JAMA. 2012;308:1237–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Koo BK, Erglis A, Doh JH, Daniels DV, Jegere S, Kim HS, et al. Diagnosis of ischemia-causing coronary stenoses by noninvasive fractional flow reserve computed from coronary computed tomographic angiograms. Results from the prospective multicenter DISCOVER-FLOW (Diagnosis of Ischemia-Causing Stenoses Obtained Via Noninvasive Fractional Flow Reserve) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:1989–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Norgaard BL, Leipsic J, Gaur S, Seneviratne S, Ko BS, Ito H, et al. Diagnostic performance of noninvasive fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography in suspected coronary artery disease: the NXT trial (Analysis of Coronary Blood Flow Using CT Angiography: Next Steps). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:1145–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Douglas PS, Pontone G, Hlatky MA, Patel MR, Norgaard BL, Byrne RA, et al. Clinical outcomes of fractional flow reserve by computed tomographic angiography-guided diagnostic strategies vs. usual care in patients with suspected coronary artery disease: the prospective longitudinal trial of FFRct: outcome and resource impacts study. Eur Heart J. 2015.

  44. Desai RR, Jha S. Diagnostic performance of cardiac stress perfusion MRI in the detection of coronary artery disease using fractional flow reserve as the reference standard: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201:W245–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Gould KL. Coronary flow reserve and pharmacologic stress perfusion imaging: beginnings and evolution. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:664–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Gould KL, Johnson NP, Bateman TM, Beanlands RS, Bengel FM, Bober R, et al. Anatomic versus physiologic assessment of coronary artery disease. Role of coronary flow reserve, fractional flow reserve, and positron emission tomography imaging in revascularization decision-making. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:1639–53. The explanation of the concepts described in the current review are described here.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Johnson NP, Toth GG, Lai D, Zhu H, Acar G, Agostoni P, et al. Prognostic value of fractional flow reserve: linking physiologic severity to clinical outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:1641–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Curzen N, Rana O, Nicholas Z, Golledge P, Zaman A, Oldroyd K, et al. Does routine pressure wire assessment influence management strategy at coronary angiography for diagnosis of chest pain?: the RIPCORD study. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:248–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Van Belle E, Rioufol G, Pouillot C, Cuisset T, Bougrini K, Teiger E, et al. Outcome impact of coronary revascularization strategy reclassification with fractional flow reserve at time of diagnostic angiography: insights from a large French multicenter fractional flow reserve registry. Circulation. 2014;129:173–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Pijls NH, Fearon WF, Tonino PA, Siebert U, Ikeno F, Bornschein B, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: 2-year follow-up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:177–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. van Nunen LX, Zimmermann FM, Tonino PA, Barbato E, Baumbach A, Engstrom T, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guidance of PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (FAME): 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015.

  52. Shiono Y, Kubo T, Tanaka A, Ino Y, Yamaguchi T, Tanimoto T, et al. Long-term outcome after deferral of revascularization in patients with intermediate coronary stenosis and gray-zone fractional flow reserve. Circ J. 2015;79:91–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Pijls NH, van Schaardenburgh P, Manoharan G, Boersma E, Bech JW, van’t Veer M, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally nonsignificant stenosis: 5-year follow-up of the DEFER Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:2105–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, Bailey SR, Bittl JA, Cercek B, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/scai Guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:e44–122.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Dattilo PB, Prasad A, Honeycutt E, Wang TY, Messenger JC. Contemporary patterns of fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound use among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:2337–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Sen S, Escaned J, Malik IS, Mikhail GW, Foale RA, Mila R, et al. Development and validation of a new adenosine-independent index of stenosis severity from coronary wave-intensity analysis: results of the ADVISE (ADenosine Vasodilator Independent Stenosis Evaluation) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1392–402.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Johnson NP, Kirkeeide RL, Asrress KN, Fearon WF, Lockie T, Marques KM, et al. Does the instantaneous wave-free ratio approximate the fractional flow reserve? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:1428–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Tarkin JM, Nijjer S, Sen S, Petraco R, Echavarria-Pinto M, Asress KN, et al. Hemodynamic response to intravenous adenosine and its effect on fractional flow reserve assessment: results of the Adenosine for the Functional Evaluation of Coronary Stenosis Severity (AFFECTS) study. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:654–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Sen S, Asrress KN, Nijjer S, Petraco R, Malik IS, Foale RA, et al. Diagnostic classification of the instantaneous wave-free ratio is equivalent to fractional flow reserve and is not improved with adenosine administration. Results of CLARIFY (Classification Accuracy of Pressure-Only Ratios Against Indices Using Flow Study). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:1409–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. DeWaard G, Danad I, da Cunha RP, Teunissen P, van de Hoef T, Raijmakers PG, et al. Hyperemic FFR and baseline iFR have an equivalent diagnostic accuracy when compared to myocardial blood flow quantified by H215O PET perfusion imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:A1692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Jeremias A, Maehara A, Genereux P, Asrress KN, Berry C, De Bruyne B, et al. Multicenter core laboratory comparison of the instantaneous wave-free ratio and resting Pd/Pa with fractional flow reserve: the RESOLVE study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:1253–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Escaned J, Echavarria-Pinto M, Garcia-Garcia HM, van de Hoef TP, de Vries T, Kaul P, et al. Prospective assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of instantaneous wave-free ratio to assess coronary stenosis relevance: results of ADVISE II International, Multicenter Study (ADenosine Vasodilator Independent Stenosis Evaluation II). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:824–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Baylor College of Medicine, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, 2002 Holcombe Blvd., 111B Cardiology, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Ali E. Denktas, David Paniagua & Hani Jneid

Authors
  1. Ali E. Denktas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Paniagua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hani Jneid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali E. Denktas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Ali E. Denktas, David Paniagua, and Hani Jneid declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Coronary Heart Disease

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Denktas, A.E., Paniagua, D. & Jneid, H. Coronary Physiology Assessment for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Stable Ischemic Heart Disease. Curr Atheroscler Rep 18, 62 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11883-016-0613-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11883-016-0613-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation