ABSTRACT
Resumo Fundamento Os limiares de corte para a "relação do ciclo completo de repouso" (RFR) oscilam em diferentes séries, sugerindo que as características da população podem influenciá-los. Da mesma forma, foram documentados preditores de discordância entre a RFR e a reserva de fluxo fracionado (FFR). O Estudo RECOPA, mostrou que a capacidade diagnóstica está reduzida na "zona cinzenta" da RFR, tornando necessária a realização de FFR para descartar ou confirmar isquemia. Objetivos Determinar os preditores de discordância, integrar as informações que eles fornecem em um índice clínico-fisiológico: a "RFR Ajustada", e comparar sua concordância com o FFR. Métodos Usando dados do Estudo RECOPA, os preditores de discordância em relação à FFR foram determinados na "zona cinzenta" da RFR (0,86 a 0,92) para construir um índice ("RFR Ajustada") que pesaria a RFR juntamente com os preditores de discordância e avaliar sua concordância com a FFR. Resultados Foram avaliadas 156 lesões em 141 pacientes. Os preditores de discordância foram: doença renal crônica, cardiopatia isquêmica prévia, lesões não envolvendo a artéria descendente anterior esquerda e síndrome coronariana aguda. Embora limitada, a "RFR Ajustada" melhorou a capacidade diagnóstica em comparação com a RFR na "zona cinzenta" (AUC-RFR = 0,651 versus AUC-"RFR Ajustada" = 0,749), mostrando também uma melhora em todos os índices diagnósticos quando foram estabelecidos limiares de corte otimizados (sensibilidade: 59% a 68%; especificidade: 62% a 75%; acurácia diagnóstica: 60% a 71%; razão de verossimilhança positiva: 1,51 a 2,34; razão de verossimilhança negativa: 0,64 a 0,37). Conclusões Ajustar a RFR integrando as informações fornecidas pelos preditores de discordância para obter a "RFR Ajustada" melhorou a capacidade diagnóstica em nossa população. Mais estudos são necessários para avaliar se os índices clínico-fisiológicos melhoram a capacidade diagnóstica da RFR ou de outros índices coronarianos.
Abstract Background Cutoff thresholds for the "resting full-cycle ratio" (RFR) oscillate in different series, suggesting that population characteristics may influence them. Likewise, predictors of discordance between the RFR and fractional flow reserve (FFR) have been documented. The RECOPA Study showed that diagnostic capacity is reduced in the RFR "grey zone", requiring the performance of FFR to rule out or confirm ischemia. Objectives To determine predictors of discordance, integrate the information they provide in a clinical-physiological index, the "Adjusted RFR", and compare its agreement with the FFR. Methods Using data from the RECOPA Study, predictors of discordance with respect to FFR were determined in the RFR "grey zone" (0.86 to 0.92) to construct an index ("Adjusted RFR") that would weigh RFR together with predictors of discordance and evaluate its agreement with FFR. Results A total of 156 lesions were evaluated in 141 patients. Predictors of discordance were: chronic kidney disease, previous ischemic heart disease, lesions not involving the anterior descending artery, and acute coronary syndrome. Though limited, the "Adjusted RFR" improved the diagnostic capacity compared to the RFR in the "grey zone" (AUC-RFR = 0.651 versus AUC-"Adjusted RFR" = 0.749), also showing an improvement in all diagnostic indices when optimal cutoff thresholds were established (sensitivity: 59% to 68%; specificity: 62% to 75%; diagnostic accuracy: 60% to 71%; positive likelihood ratio: 1.51 to 2.34; negative likelihood ratio: 0.64 to 0.37). Conclusions Adjusting the RFR by integrating the information provided by predictors of discordance to obtain the "Adjusted RFR" improved the diagnostic capacity in our population. Further studies are required to evaluate whether clinical-physiological indices improve the diagnostic capacity of RFR or other coronary indices.
ABSTRACT
Resumen Antecedentes: Los procedimientos coronarios invasivos conllevan la administración de contraste y la exposición a radiaciones ionizantes, comportando un incremento de la morbimortalidad. La angiografía coronaria rotacional (ACR) permite adquirir múltiples proyecciones con una inyección de contraste. Hasta la fecha, no hay metaanálisis específicos comparando la ACR y la angiografía coronaria convencional (ACC) en pacientes en los que se realizan procedimientos coronarios invasivos, tanto diagnósticos como diagnósticos y terapéuticos. El objetivo de este metaanálisis es evaluar el impacto de la ACR en la cantidad de contraste, y la radiación ionizante en procedimientos coronarios invasivos. Métodos: Se realizó una búsqueda en las bases de datos PubMed y Ovid para identificar estudios tanto diagnósticos como diagnósticos y terapéuticos que comparasen ACR y ACC. Los estudios fueron evaluados sobre la calidad y los sesgos, y fueron incluidos si contemplaban alguna de las siguientes variables de valoración: volumen de contraste, radiación ionizante medida como producto dosis-área, Kerma-aire o tiempo de fluoroscopia. Resultados: Dieciséis estudios, totalizando 2,327 pacientes, fueron incluidos en el análisis final (1,146 pacientes recibieron ACR y 1,181, ACC), objetivándose diferencias significativas en volumen de contraste (diferencia estándar de medias (intervalo de confianza al 95%) −1.887 (−2.472 a −1.302); p < 0.001), producto dosis-área (−0.726 (−1.034 a −0.418); p < 0.001), Kerma-aire (−0.842 (−1.104 a −0.581); p < 0.001) y tiempo de fluoroscopia (0.263 (−0.496 a −0.030); p = 0.027). Conclusiones: La ACR permite reducir el volumen de contraste y la radiación, evaluada como producto dosis-área, Kerma-aire y tiempo de fluoroscopia en pacientes a los que se les realizan procedimientos coronarios invasivos.
Abstract Background: Invasive coronary procedures involve the administration of iodinated contrast and the exposure to ionising radiations, increasing morbidity and mortality. The rotational coronary angiography (RCA) allows acquiring multiple projections with a unique injection of iodinated contrast. To date, there are no meta-analyses specifically comparing RCA and conventional coronary angiography (CCA) in patients undergoing invasive coronary procedures, whether diagnostic or diagnostic and therapeutic. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the impact of RCA on the amount of iodinated contrast and the exposure to ionising radiations during invasive coronary procedures. Methods: A search in PubMed and Ovid databases was conducted to identify studies, including diagnostic and diagnostic and therapeutic studies, comparing RCA and CCA. The manuscripts were evaluated on quality and biases, and were included if they analysed any of the following endpoints: volume of contrast and exposure to ionising radiations measured as dose-area product, and Kerma-air or fluoroscopy time. Results: Sixteen studies, with a total of 2,327 patients, were included in the final analysis (1,146 patients underwent RCA and 1,181 patients underwent CCA), with significant differences being detected in volume of contrast (standard difference in means (95% confidence interval) −1.887 (−2.472 to −1.302); P < .001), dose-area product (−0.726 (−1.034 to −0.418); P < .001), Kerma-air (−0.842 (−1.104 to −0.581); P < .001), and fluoroscopy time (0.263 (−0.496 to −0.030); P = .027). Conclusions: RCA reduces the volume of contrast and the exposure to radiation, evaluated as dose-area product, Kerma-air, and fluoroscopy time, in patients undergoing invasive coronary procedures.