We have located links that may give you full text access.
Resting Pd/Pa and haemodynamic relevance of coronary stenosis as evaluated by fractional flow reserve.
Coronary Artery Disease 2018 March
BACKGROUND: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) currently represents the gold standard in the evaluation of the haemodynamic relevance of coronary stenoses. However, both intracoronary and intravenous adenosine may be tolerated poorly by some patients. Therefore, considerable interest had been focused in the last few years on new adenosine-free indexes to define the haemodynamic relevance of coronary stenoses. So far, few data have been reported on resting Pd/Pa and its correlation with FFR as evaluated with high-dose intracoronary adenosine administration, which is the aim of the current study.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: FFR was assessed in 120 patients with 137 intermediate lesions during cardiac catheterization by a pressure-recording guidewire (PrimeWire). FFR was calculated as the ratio of the distal coronary pressure to the aortic pressure at hyperaemia. Intracoronary doses of adenosine were administered up to 720 μg as intracoronary boli. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (a) allergy to adenosine; (b) baseline bradycardia (heart rate <50 bpm); (c) hypotension (blood pressure <90 mmHg); and (d) refusal to provide signed informed consent.
RESULTS: High doses of intracoronary adenosine were well tolerated, with no major side effects. Increasing doses up to 720 μg progressively decreased FFR values and increased the percentage of patients showing an FFR less than 0.80. Resting Pd/Pa showed good accuracy in the identification of patients with significant FFR values (<0.80) [area under the curve=0.9 (0.84-0.96), P<0.0001]. Using receiver-operating characteristic curves, we identified a threshold less than 0.93 as the best accurate cut-off value in the prediction of a positive FFR value. A value up to 0.88 was associated with a 100% positive predictive value, whereas a value of at least 0.95 was associated with a 95% negative predictive value.
CONCLUSION: This study showed that in intermediate lesions, resting Pd/Pa was related linearly to FFR. We identified 0.93 as the best cut-off value in the prediction of haemodynamically significant coronary stenosis as evaluated by FFR. However, cut-off values of 0.88 and 0.95 could provide the maximal predictive positive and negative values, suggesting the additional use of FFR only in patients with resting values within this range.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: FFR was assessed in 120 patients with 137 intermediate lesions during cardiac catheterization by a pressure-recording guidewire (PrimeWire). FFR was calculated as the ratio of the distal coronary pressure to the aortic pressure at hyperaemia. Intracoronary doses of adenosine were administered up to 720 μg as intracoronary boli. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (a) allergy to adenosine; (b) baseline bradycardia (heart rate <50 bpm); (c) hypotension (blood pressure <90 mmHg); and (d) refusal to provide signed informed consent.
RESULTS: High doses of intracoronary adenosine were well tolerated, with no major side effects. Increasing doses up to 720 μg progressively decreased FFR values and increased the percentage of patients showing an FFR less than 0.80. Resting Pd/Pa showed good accuracy in the identification of patients with significant FFR values (<0.80) [area under the curve=0.9 (0.84-0.96), P<0.0001]. Using receiver-operating characteristic curves, we identified a threshold less than 0.93 as the best accurate cut-off value in the prediction of a positive FFR value. A value up to 0.88 was associated with a 100% positive predictive value, whereas a value of at least 0.95 was associated with a 95% negative predictive value.
CONCLUSION: This study showed that in intermediate lesions, resting Pd/Pa was related linearly to FFR. We identified 0.93 as the best cut-off value in the prediction of haemodynamically significant coronary stenosis as evaluated by FFR. However, cut-off values of 0.88 and 0.95 could provide the maximal predictive positive and negative values, suggesting the additional use of FFR only in patients with resting values within this range.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app