ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To validate QFR using 4-F diagnostic catheters compared to using 6-F guiding catheters, with conventional guidewire-based FFR as the reference standard, using independent core laboratory analysis. BACKGROUND: Quantitative Flow Ratio (QFR) allows Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) calculation based on the coronary angiogram, using 5- or 6-French (F) catheters. However, the use of 4-F diagnostic catheters to perform coronary angiography is currently routine in some centers. METHODS: We included all consecutive patients with stable coronary artery disease and indicated for physiological assessment. QFR was performed using a 4-F diagnostic catheter, then QFR was performed using a 6-F guiding catheter while conventional FFR was measured using a pressure guidewire. Angiograms were sent to two separate core laboratories. RESULTS: One hundred lesions in 67 consecutive patients with QFR performed using 4-F and 6-F catheters, and with conventional FFR, were included. Pearson's correlation coefficient was for QFR 4-F vs. FFR 0.91 [0.87-0.94], for QFR 6-F vs. FFR 0.90 [0.86-0.94], and for QFR 4-F vs. QFR 6-F 0.93 [0.90-0.95]. Receiver-operator characteristic curves (ROC) comparing the ability to predict an FFR value above or below 0.80 with QFR 4-F and 6-F were generated. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) vs. FFR was 0.972 [0.95-0.99] for QFR 4-F and 0.970 [0.94-0.99] for QFR 6-F. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated the feasibility of performing QFR analysis from angiograms obtained by 4-F catheters, and showed a good correlation with QFR performed using 6-F catheters as well as with conventional FFR performed using a pressure guidewire.
Subject(s)
Coronary Artery Disease , Coronary Stenosis , Fractional Flow Reserve, Myocardial , Catheters , Coronary Angiography , Coronary Artery Disease/diagnostic imaging , Coronary Artery Disease/therapy , Coronary Stenosis/diagnostic imaging , Coronary Stenosis/therapy , Coronary Vessels , Fractional Flow Reserve, Myocardial/physiology , Humans , Predictive Value of Tests , Reproducibility of Results , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To analyze the results of extracorporeal life support (ECLS) for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in a single-center experience. BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock is still a leading cause of death for AMI. Conventional management carries mortality rates exceeding 50%. ECLS may be considered as a bridge to decision in the setting of AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock not responsive to standard management. METHODS: We performed an observational analysis of our local database. The primary end-point was survival to hospital discharge. All variables were compared between survivors and nonsurvivors. RESULTS: Between January 2007 and December 2017, 56 patients were supported for cardiogenic shock complicating AMI. The mean age was 56.7 years and 89.3% were males. Baseline characteristics were comparable between both groups. Of the 50 primary percutaneous coronary interventions that were attempted, 44 (88.0%) were successful. Twenty-three (41.1%) patients died during ECLS support. The complications' rate during ECLS support was comparable between both groups. Twenty-eight (50%) patients were successfully weaned from ECLS after a mean support of 8.7 days. Eight (14.3%) patients eventually died after weaning before hospital discharge. Five (8.9%) patients could not be weaned from ECLS and were switched to a long-term mechanical circulatory support. Overall survival to hospital discharge was 41.1% (n = 23). Eighteen (32.1%) patients were alive after a mean follow-up of 38.0 ± 29.9 (range, 4.2-95.4) months. CONCLUSIONS: ECLS should be considered as a therapeutic solution in the management of AMI-related cardiogenic shock with a satisfactory short- and long-term survival.
Subject(s)
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Myocardial Infarction/therapy , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , Shock, Cardiogenic/therapy , Adult , Aged , Databases, Factual , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/adverse effects , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/mortality , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Myocardial Infarction/complications , Myocardial Infarction/mortality , Myocardial Infarction/physiopathology , Patient Discharge , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/adverse effects , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/mortality , Recovery of Function , Risk Factors , Shock, Cardiogenic/etiology , Shock, Cardiogenic/mortality , Shock, Cardiogenic/physiopathology , Time Factors , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Up to 25% of patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have ST segment re-elevation after initial regression post-reperfusion and there are few data regarding its prognostic significance.MethodsâandâResults:A standard 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) was recorded in 662 patients with anterior STEMI referred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). ECGs were recorded 60-90 min after PPCI and at discharge. ST segment re-elevation was defined as a ≥0.1-mV increase in STMax between the post-PPCI and discharge ECGs. Infarct size (assessed as creatine kinase [CK] peak), echocardiography at baseline and follow-up, and all-cause death and heart failure events at 1 year were assessed. In all, 128 patients (19%) had ST segment re-elevation. There was no difference between patients with and without re-elevation in infarct size (CK peak [mean±SD] 4,231±2,656 vs. 3,993±2,819 IU/L; P=0.402), left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (50.7±11.6% vs. 52.2±10.8%; P=0.186), LV adverse remodeling (20.1±38.9% vs. 18.3±30.9%; P=0.631), or all-cause mortality and heart failure events (22 [19.8%] vs. 106 [19.2%]; P=0.887) at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Among anterior STEMI patients treated by PPCI, ST segment re-elevation was present in 19% and was not associated with increased infarct size or major adverse events at 1 year.
