BACKGROUNDCoronary revascularization guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is associated with better patient outcomes after the procedure than revascularization guided by angiography alone. It is unknown whether the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), an alternative measure that does not require the administration of adenosine, will offer benefits similar to those of FFR. METHODSWe randomly assigned 2492 patients with coronary artery disease, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo either iFR-guided or FFR-guided coronary revascularization. The primary end point was the 1-year risk of major adverse cardiac events, which were a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. The trial was designed to show the noninferiority of iFR to FFR, with a margin of 3.4 percentage points for the difference in risk. RESULTSAt 1 year, the primary end point had occurred in 78 of 1148 patients (6.8%) in the iFR group and in 83 of 1182 patients (7.0%) in the FFR group (difference in risk, −0.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.3 to 1.8; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.33; P = 0.78). The risk of each component of the primary end point and of death from cardiovascular or noncardiovascular causes did not differ significantly between the groups. The number of patients who had adverse procedural symptoms and clinical signs was significantly lower in the iFR group than in the FFR group (39 patients [3.1%] vs. 385 patients [30.8%], P<0.001), and the median procedural time was significantly shorter (40.5 minutes vs. 45.0 minutes, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONSCoronary revascularization guided by iFR was noninferior to revascularization guided by FFR with respect to the risk of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year. The rate of adverse procedural signs and symptoms was lower and the procedural time was shorter with iFR than with FFR. ( Use of Instantaneous Wave-free R atio in PCI F or the past 20 years, physiological measurements obtained during invasive procedures have been used to guide coronary revascularization. Pioneering work supported the use of flow measurements to make safe decisions about revascularization, 1,2 but this approach was soon superseded by the use of fractional flow reserve (FFR), which measures pressure as a surrogate of flow to estimate the severity of stenosis. 3-5 FFR was successful largely because of its technical simplicity and because clinical trials showed that it was associated with improved clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). 6,7 Consequently, FFR is now included in the appropriate-use criteria for coronary angiography and in the American College of Cardiology-American Heart Association-European Society of Cardiology guidelines; despite these recommendations, its adoption remains limited. [8][9][10] FFR must be measured during maximal hyperemia, which is typically induced with the administration of a potent intravenous or intracoronary vasodilator, such as adenosine. 11 Several studies have...

No abstract

Objective-Perivascular fat through the secretion of paracrine and pro-inflammatory mediators may play a role in obesity-mediated vascular disease. We sought to examine associations between adipose tissue depots immediately surrounding the thoracic aorta, metabolic risk factors, and vascular calcification.Methods-In participants free of cardiovascular disease (CVD) from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring cohort who underwent computed tomography (n=1067, mean age 59 years, 56.1% women), thoracic peri-aortic fat depots were quantified. Visceral abdominal tissue (VAT) and calcification of the thoracic and abdominal aorta were also measured.Results-Peri-aortic fat depots were correlated with body mass index, waist circumference (WC), VAT (all p<0.0001), hypertension (p<0.007), lower HDL (p<0.0001), serum triglycerides (p<0.0001), impaired fasting glucose (p<0.005), and diabetes (p=0.02). These associations generally remained significant after adjustment for BMI and WC (all p-values<0.05), but not after VAT adjustment. Thoracic aortic fat was associated with thoracic calcification in models containing VAT (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.01-1.71, p=0.04), but was not significant after adjustment for CVD risk factors (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.88-1.51, p=0.30). Thoracic aortic fat, however, was associated with abdominal Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Conclusions-Thoracic peri-aortic fat is associated with measures of adiposity, metabolic risk factors, and coronary and abdominal aortic calcification.

Computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging is moderately accurate in identifying perfusion defects associated with ischaemia as assessed by FFR in patients considered for revascularization. In territories, where CTA and CTP are concordant, CTA/CTP is highly accurate in the detection and exclusion of ischaemia. This is achievable with acceptable radiation exposure using 320-detector row CT and prospective ECG gating.

Background Perivascular adipose tissue may be associated with the amount of local atherosclerosis. We developed a novel and reproducible method to standardize volumetric quantification of periaortic adipose tissue by computed tomography (CT) and determined the association with anthropometric measures of obesity, and abdominal adipose tissue. Methods Measurements of adipose tissue were performed in a random subset of participants from the Framingham Heart Study (n=100) who underwent multidetector CT of the thorax (ECG triggering, 2.5 mm slice thickness) and the abdomen (helical CT acquisition, 2.5 mm slice thickness). Abdominal periaortic adipose tissue (AAT) was defined by a 5 mm cylindrical region of interest around the aortic wall; thoracic periaortic adipose tissue (TAT) was defined by anatomic landmarks. TAT and AAT were defined as any voxel between −195 HU to −45HU and volumes were measured using dedicated semiautomatic software. Measurement reproducibility and association with anthropometric measures of obesity, and abdominal adipose tissue were determined. Results The intra- and inter-observer reproducibility for both AAT and TAT was excellent (ICC: 0.97, 0.97; 0.99, and 0.98, respectively). Similarly, the relative intra-and inter-observer difference was small for both AAT (−1.85±1.28% and 7.85±6.08%; respectively) and TAT (3.56±0.83% and −4.56±0.85%, respectively). Both AAT and TAT were highly correlated with visceral abdominal fat (r=0.65 and 0.77, p<0.0001 for both) and moderately correlated with subcutaneous abdominal fat (r=0.39 and 0.42, p<0.0001 and p=0.009), waist circumference (r=0.49 and 0.57, p<0.0001 for both), and body mass index (r=0.47 and 0.58, p<0.0001 for both). Conclusion Standardized semiautomatic CT-based volumetric quantification of periaortic adipose tissue is feasible and highly reproducible. Further investigation is warranted regarding associations of periaortic adipose tissue with other body fat deposits, cardiovascular risk factors, and clinical outcomes.