Background Revascularisation of significant non-culprit coronary lesions (NCL) may improve clinical outcome in patients with myocardial infarction and multi vessel disease, however management of moderate NCLs is still controversial. Dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) and invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) are accepted methods to detect myocardial ischemia, nevertheless coronary CT angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) is a new modality, which has not been widely investigated to date in patients with NCLs. Purpose Our aim was to determine the diagnostic performance of CT-FFR compared to DSE and invasive FFR. Methods In this prospective trial, DSE, FFR and CT-FFR were performed in every patient with MI and at least one moderate NCL (30–70% diameter stenosis by visual assessment). New or worsening wall motion abnormality in at least two contiguous myocardial segments on DSE, and FFR value<0.8 in invasive FFR and CT-FFR as well were determined as abnormal. In comparison, DSE and FFR were regarded as reference standard methods. Results Between March of 2017 and December of 2018, 51 patients (58.2±10.4 years, 74.5% male) were enrolled and 71 NCLs (40 LAD, 13 LCx, 18 RCA) were investigated. Dobutamine stress echocardiography, FFR and CT-FFR were positive in 30.9%, 32.3% and 22.5% of all lesions, respectively. FFR values were higher with CT-FFR compared to invasive FFR (0.85±0.11 vs. 0.83±0.08, p<0.05). Compared to DSE, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and diagnostic accuracy of CT-FFR were 40.9%, 85.7%, 56.2%, 76.3% and 71.8%, respectively. The same values were 39.1%, 85.4%, 56.2%, 74.5% and 70.4% compared to invasive FFR, respectively. Correspondence of CT-FFR with DSE (k=0.29) and with FFR (k=0.27) was weak. Conclusion This is the first study that compares the three modalities in the evaluation of moderate NCLs. Our results demonstrated moderate diagnostic accuracy, excellent specificity, poor sensitivity and PPV and acceptable NPV of CT-FFR compared to DSE and FFR. At this stage, CT-FFR is probably not accurate enough to determine revascularisation strategy of moderate NCLs as a single non-invasive method.
Fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement was compared to dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) instable angina (SA) with stable coronary lesion(s) (SCL(s)) in a few trials; however, similar comparisons in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with non-culprit lesion(s) (NCL(s)) are lacking. Our objectives were to prospectively evaluate the diagnostic performance of FFR with two different cutoff values (< 0.80 and < 0.75) relative to DSE in moderate (30%-70% diameter stenosis) NCLs (ACS group) and to compare these observations with those measured in SCLs (SA group). One hundred seventy-five consecutive patients with SA (n = 86) and ACS (n = 89) with 225 coronary lesions (109 SCLs and 116 NCLs) were enrolled. In contrast to the ACS cohort in SA patients, normal DSE was associated with higher FFR values compared to those with abnormal DSE (P = 0.051 versus P = 0.006). In addition, in the SA group, a significant correlation was observed between DSE (regional wall motion score index at peak stress) and FFR (r = −0.290; P = 0.002), whereas a similar association was absent (r = −0.029; P = 0.760) among ACS patients. In the SA group, decreasing the FFR cutoff value (< 0.80 versus < 0.75) improved the concordance of FFR with DSE (70.6% versus 81.7%) without altering its discriminatory power (area under the curve; 0.68 versus 0.63; P = 0.369), whereas in the ACS group, concordance remained similar (69.0% versus 71.6%) and discriminatory power decreased (0.62 versus 0.51; P = 0.049), respectively. In conclusion, lesion-specific FFR assessment may have different relevance in patients with moderate NCLs than in patients with SCLs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.