Coronary pressure-derived fractional flow reserve in the assessment of coronary artery stenoses
- 670 Downloads
Catheter-based angiography is the reference-standard to establish coronary anatomy. While routinely employed clinically, lumen assessment correlates poorly with physiological measures of ischaemia. Moreover, functional studies to identify and localise ischaemia before elective angiography are often not available. This article reviews fractional flow reserve (FFR) and its role in guiding patient management for patients with a potentially haemodynamic significant coronary lesion.
This review discusses the theory, evidence, indications, and limitations of FFR. Also included are emerging non-invasive imaging FFR surrogates currently under evaluation for accuracy with respect to standard FFR.
Coronary pressure-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) rapidly assesses the haemodynamic significance of individual coronary artery lesions and can readily be performed in the catheterisation laboratory. The use of FFR has been shown to effectively guide coronary revascularization procedures leading to improved patient outcomes.
FFR is an invaluable modality in guiding coronary disease treatment decisions. It is safe, cost-effective and leads to improved patient outcomes. Non-invasive imaging modalities to assess the physiologic significance of CAD are currently being developed and evaluated.
• Coronary pressure-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) is an important adjunct to angiography.
• FFR is an invaluable technique in guiding coronary disease treatment decisions.
• FFR is safe, cost-effective and leads to improved patient outcomes.
• New directions include CT-based non-invasive conventional FFR surrogates for functional lesion significance.
KeywordsFractional flow reserve Coronary artery disease Cardiac CT Percutaneous coronary intervention Physiology
- 1.Kushner FG, Hand M, Smith SC et al (2009) 2009 Focused Updates: ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (Updating the 2004 Guideline and 2007 Focused Update) and ACC/AHA/SCAI Guidelines on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (Updating the 2005 Guideline and 2007 Focused Update). Circulation 120:2271–2306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.de Bruyne B, Bartunek J, Sys SU, Pijls NHJ, Heyndrickx GR, Wijns W (1996) Simultaneous coronary pressure and flow velocity measurements in humans: feasibility, reproducibility, and hemodynamic dependence of coronary flow velocity reserve, hyperemic flow versus pressure slope index, and fractional flow reserve. Circulation 94:1842–1849PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Pijls NH, Fearon WF, Tonino PA et al (2010) 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 56:177–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Maron DJ et al (2008) Optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention to reduce ischemic burden: results from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial nuclear substudy. Circulation 117:1283–1291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Kern MJ (2012) Conversations in cardiology: using new media to transmit timely medical knowledge. How do you assess the left main stenosis with FFR and IVUS in a patient with multivessel CAD? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 80:465-471Google Scholar
- 35.Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Shaw LJ et al (1998) Incremental prognostic value of myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography for the prediction of cardiac death: differential stratification for risk of cardiac death and myocardial infarction. Circulation 97:535–543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 41.de Graaf FR, Schuijf JD, van Velzen JE et al (2010) Diagnostic accuracy of 320-row multidetector computed tomography coronary angiography to noninvasively assess in-stent restenosis. Investig Radiol 45:331–340Google Scholar
- 43.Hang C-L, Lee Y-W, Guo GB-F et al (2011) Evaluation of coronary artery stent patency by using 64-slice multi-detector computed tomography and conventional coronary angiography: a comparison with intravascular ultrasonography. Int J CardiolGoogle Scholar
- 44.Meijboom WB, Van Mieghem CA, van Pelt N et al (2008) Comprehensive assessment of coronary artery stenoses: computed tomography coronary angiography versus conventional coronary angiography and correlation with fractional flow reserve in patients with stable angina. J Am Coll Cardiol 52:636–643PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 45.George RT, Arbab-Zadeh A, Cerci RJ et al (2011) Diagnostic performance of combined noninvasive coronary angiography and myocardial perfusion imaging using 320-MDCT: the CT angiography and perfusion methods of the CORE320 Multicenter Multinational Diagnostic Study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:829–837PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 48.Rieber J, Jung P, Erhard I et al (2004) Comparison of pressure measurement, dobutamine contrast stress echocardiography and SPECT for the evaluation of intermediate coronary stenoses. The COMPRESS trial. Int J Cardiovasc Interv 6:142–147Google Scholar
- 49.Chamuleau SAJ, Meuwissen M, van Eck-Smit BLF et al (2001) Fractional flow reserve, absolute and relative coronary blood flow velocity reserve in relation to the results of technetium-99m sestambi single-photon emission computed tomography in patients with two-vessel coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 37:1316–1322PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 52.Tani S, Watanabe I, Kobari C et al (2004) Mismatch between results of myocardial fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements and myocardial perfusion SPECT for identification of the severity of ischemia: pitfall of FFR in patients with prior myocardial infarction. Jpn Heart J 45:867–872PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 54.Jimenez-Navarro M, Alonso-Briales JH, Hernandez Garcia MJ, Rodriguez Bailon I, Gomez-Doblas JJ, de Teresa Galvan E (2001) Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess moderately severe coronary lesions: correlation with dobutamine stress echocardiography. J Interv Cardiol 14:499–504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 58.Manka R, Paetsch I, Kozerke S et al (2012) Whole-heart dynamic three-dimensional magnetic resonance perfusion imaging for the detection of coronary artery disease defined by fractional flow reserve: determination of volumetric myocardial ischaemic burden and coronary lesion location. Eur Hear J 33:2016–2024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 66.George RT, Arbab-Zadeh A, Miller JM et al (2009) Adenosine stress 64- and 256-row detector computed tomography angiography and perfusion imaging: a pilot study evaluating the transmural extent of perfusion abnormalities to predict atherosclerosis causing myocardial ischemia. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2:174–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 73.Rybicki F, Melchionna S, Mitsouras D et al (2009) Prediction of coronary artery plaque progression and potential rupture from 320-detector row prospectively ECG-gated single heart beat CT angiography: Lattice Boltzmann evaluation of endothelial shear stress. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 25:289–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 82.St. Goar F, Min JK, Koo B-K, Taylor C (2012) CTA-derived coronary FFR: the “holy Grail” of noninvasive imaging? Cardiac Interventions Today, March/April, pp 44–48Google Scholar
- 83.Koo B-K, Erglis A, Doh J-H et al (2011) 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 58:1989–1997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 86.Min JK, Leipsic J, Pencina MJ et al (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of fractional flow reserve from anatomic CT angiography. JAMA 308:1237-1245Google Scholar