Background-Discordance between fractional flow reserve (FFR) and coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) may reflect important coronary pathophysiology but usually remains unnoticed in clinical practice. We evaluated the physiological basis and clinical outcome associated with FFR/CFVR discordance. Methods and Results-We studied 157 intermediate coronary stenoses in 157 patients, evaluated by FFR and CFVR between April 1997 and September 2006 in which revascularization was deferred. Long-term follow-up was performed to document the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events: cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Discordance between FFR and CFVR occurred in 31% and 37% of stenoses at the 0.75, and 0.80 FFR cut-off value, respectively, and was characterized by microvascular resistances during basal and hyperemic conditions. Follow-up duration amounted to 11.7 years (Q1-Q3, 9.9-13.3 years). Compared with concordant normal results of FFR and CFVR, a normal FFR with an abnormal CFVR was associated with significantly increased major adverse cardiac events rate throughout 10 years of follow-up, regardless of the FFR cut-off applied. In contrast, an abnormal FFR with a normal CFVR was associated with equivalent clinical outcome compared with concordant normal results: ≤3 years when FFR <0.75 was depicted abnormal and throughout 10 years of follow-up when FFR ≤0.80 was depicted abnormal. Conclusions-Discordance of CFVR with FFR originates from the involvement of the coronary microvasculature. Importantly, the risk for major adverse cardiac events associated with FFR/CFVR discordance is mainly attributable to stenoses where CFVR is abnormal. This emphasizes the requirement of intracoronary flow assessment in addition to coronary pressure for optimal risk stratification in stable coronary artery disease. (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:301-311.)Key Words: coronary flow velocity reserve ◼ coronary microcirculation ◼ fractional flow reserve ◼ stable coronary artery disease

BackgroundOur understanding of human coronary physiological behaviour is derived from animal models. We sought to describe physiological behaviour across a large collection of invasive pressure and flow velocity measurements, to provide a better understanding of the relationships between these physiological parameters and to evaluate the rationale for resting stenosis assessment.Methods and results Five hundred and sixty-seven simultaneous intracoronary pressure and flow velocity assessments from 301 patients were analysed for coronary flow velocity, trans-stenotic pressure gradient (TG), and microvascular resistance (MVR). Measurements were made during baseline and hyperaemic conditions. The whole cardiac cycle and the diastolic wave-free period were assessed. Stenoses were assessed according to fractional flow reserve (FFR) and quantitative coronary angiography DS%. With progressive worsening of stenoses, from unobstructed angiographic normal vessels to those with FFR ≤ 0.50, hyperaemic flow falls significantly from 45 to 19 cm/s, Ptrend < 0.001 in a curvilinear pattern. Resting flow was unaffected by stenosis severity and was consistent across all strata of stenosis ( Ptrend > 0.05 for all). Trans-stenotic pressure gradient rose with stenosis severity for both rest and hyperaemic measures ( Ptrend < 0.001 for both). Microvascular resistance declines with stenosis severity under resting conditions ( Ptrend < 0.001), but was unchanged at hyperaemia (2.3 ± 1.1 mmHg/cm/s; Ptrend = 0.19). ConclusionsWith progressive stenosis severity, TG rises. However, while hyperaemic flow falls significantly, resting coronary flow is maintained by compensatory reduction of MVR, demonstrating coronary auto-regulation. These data support the translation of coronary physiological concepts derived from animals to patients with coronary artery disease and furthermore, suggest that resting pressure indices can be used to detect the haemodynamic significance of coronary artery stenoses.

Identification of epicardial disease severity by FFR is partly obscured by the microvascular resistance, which illustrates the necessity of combined pressure and flow measurements in daily practice.

Background— Coronary flow reserve has extensive validation as a prognostic marker in coronary disease. Although pressure-only fractional flow reserve (FFR) improves outcomes compared with angiography when guiding percutaneous coronary intervention, it disagrees with coronary flow reserve classification 30% of the time. We evaluated whether baseline instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) could provide an improved pressure-only estimation of underlying coronary flow reserve. Methods and Results— Invasive pressure and flow velocity were measured in 216 stenoses from 186 patients with coronary disease. The diagnostic relationship between pressure-only indices (iFR and FFR) and coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) was compared using correlation coefficient and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. iFR showed a stronger correlation with underlying CFVR (iFR–CFVR, ρ=0.68 versus FFR–CFVR, ρ=0.50; P <0.001). iFR also agreed more closely with CFVR in stenosis classification (iFR area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.82 versus FFR area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.72; P <0.001, for a CFVR of 2). The closer relationship between iFR and CFVR was found for different CFVR cutoffs and was particularly marked in the 0.6 to 0.9 FFR range. Hyperemic FFR flow was similar to baseline iFR flow in functionally significant lesions (FFR ≤0.75; mean FFR flow, 25.8±13.7 cm/s versus mean iFR flow, 21.5±11.7 cm/s; P =0.13). FFR flow was higher than iFR flow in nonsignificant stenoses (FFR >0.75; mean FFR flow, 42.3±22.8 cm/s versus mean iFR flow, 26.1±15.5 cm/s; P <0.001). Conclusions— When compared with FFR, iFR shows stronger correlation and better agreement with CFVR. These results provide physiological evidence that iFR could potentially be used as a functional index of disease severity, independently from its agreement with FFR.

No abstract

No abstract

T he purpose of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is to relieve epicardial stenoses and thereby increase coronary flow ostensibly to relieve symptoms of angina. However, some studies suggest that PCI offers little clinical benefit over medical therapy, 1 whereas others show that when PCI is guided by markers of physiological severity such as fractional flow reserve (FFR) outcomes can be improved.2-4 Because physiological parameters offer additional information about ischemia over angiographic assessment, 5 the disparity in findings and improved outcome by application of physiology is likely because of improved differentiation of lesions into those with the highest likelihood of ischemia, and deferring those with lowest likelihood of ischemia.6 However, the uptake of physiology before PCI remains low.7 Even in centers Background-Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) aims to increase coronary blood flow by relieving epicardial obstruction. However, no study has objectively confirmed this and assessed changes in flow over different phases of the cardiac cycle. We quantified the change in resting and hyperemic flow velocity after PCI in stenoses defined physiologically by fractional flow reserve and other parameters. Methods and Results-Seventy-five stenoses (67 patients) underwent paired flow velocity assessment before and after PCI.Flow velocity was measured over the whole cardiac cycle and the wave-free period. Mean fractional flow reserve was 0.68±0.02. Pre-PCI, hyperemic flow velocity is diminished in stenoses classed as physiologically significant compared with those classed nonsignificant (P<0.001). In significant stenoses, flow velocity over the resting wave-free period and hyperemic flow velocity did not differ statistically. After PCI, resting flow velocity over the wave-free period increased little (5.6±1.6 cm/s) and significantly less than hyperemic flow velocity (21.2±3 cm/s; P<0.01). The greatest increase in hyperemic flow velocity was observed when treating stenoses below physiological cut points; treating stenoses with fractional flow reserve ≤0.80 gained Δ28.5±3.8 cm/s, whereas those fractional flow reserve >0.80 had a significantly smaller gain (Δ4.6±2.3 cm/s; P<0.001). The change in pressure-only physiological indices demonstrated a curvilinear relationship to the change in hyperemic flow velocity but was flat for resting flow velocity. Conclusions-Pre-PCI physiology is strongly associated with post-PCI increase in hyperemic coronary flow velocity.Hyperemic flow velocity increases 6-fold more when stenoses classed as physiologically significant undergo PCI than when nonsignificant stenoses are treated. Resting flow velocity measured over the wave-free period changes at least 4-fold less than hyperemic flow velocity after PCI. (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:e001715.

With simultaneous pressure and flow velocity measurements, basal conditions do not systematically limit BSR accuracy compared with HSR. Consequently, diagnostic performance of BSR is equivalent to FFR, and closely approximates HSR.