ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: DSE and SPECT are two well-established methods to non-invasively investigate the functional significance of coronary artery stenoses in patients with coronary artery disease. The measurement of Fractional Flow Reserve has emerged a new invasive reference standard for lesion specific quantification of coronary artery stenoses. The objective of our prospective study was to compare sensitivity and specificity of Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography (DSE) and Single Photon Emission Computer tomography (SPECT) with the pressure derived Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) for the identification of hemodynamic relevant coronary lesions in patients with predominately coronary multivessel disease and angiographically intermediate stenoses. METHODS: Inclusion criteria were a coronary lesion of 50-75% diameter stenosis by visual assessment in patients with known or suspected CAD. SPECT, DSE and FFR testing was performed within one week of coronary angiography. RESULTS: The study comprised 48 consecutive symptomatic patients. In 41 cases, a coronary multivessel disease was present. Mean FFR was 0.80 +/- 0.13 (0.41-1.0). Overall sensitivity of DSE and SPECT was 67% and 69% whereas specificity reached 77% and 87%. However, sensitivity was significantly reduced if the target lesion was located distally. DSE showed poor results if the lesions were located in the circumflex artery or if a history of prior myocardial infarctions was present. CONCLUSION: DSE and SPECT are both useful methods for the non-invasive assessment of coronary artery disease. DSE showed reasonable combination of sensitivity and specificity even in patients with multivessel disease. Although use of noninvasive stress tests is only limited in patients with prior myocardial infarctions and invasive stress testing should be preferred in these patients.
Subject(s)
Blood Pressure , Coronary Circulation , Coronary Stenosis/diagnosis , Echocardiography, Stress , Stroke Volume , Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon , Aged , Coronary Angiography , Coronary Stenosis/physiopathology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Sensitivity and Specificity , Severity of Illness IndexSubject(s)
Blood Flow Velocity , Coronary Artery Disease/mortality , Coronary Artery Disease/physiopathology , Coronary Stenosis/mortality , Coronary Stenosis/physiopathology , Severity of Illness Index , Aged , Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary , Coronary Artery Disease/therapy , Coronary Circulation/physiology , Coronary Stenosis/therapy , Coronary Vessels/physiology , Female , Germany , Humans , Long-Term Care , Male , Prospective Studies , Survival AnalysisABSTRACT
Fractional flow reserve (FFR) as a new technique for physiological assessment of coronary stenoses could identify patients with CAD in whom the deferral of an intended PCI was more beneficial than performing the planned procedure. It is up to now unknown whether a FFR-based therapy stratification is also safe in patients with multivessel disease and complex coronary lesions. This study demonstrates in 71 symptomatic patients with predominantly multivessel disease and angiographically intermediate coronary lesions that patients do not benefit from PCI procedures in terms of overall survival, target vessel patency or clinical symptoms during 12 month follow-up if FFR is above 0.75.
Subject(s)
Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary , Coronary Circulation/physiology , Coronary Disease/physiopathology , Coronary Disease/therapy , Stents , Aged , Coronary Angiography , Coronary Disease/diagnostic imaging , Coronary Disease/mortality , Data Interpretation, Statistical , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Germany , Humans , Hyperemia/physiopathology , Male , Survival Analysis , Time FactorsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Determination of fractional flow reserve (FFR) allows the functional assessment of coronary stenoses before and after an intervention. Preliminary data suggest that a FFR > or = 0.94 is associated with an excellent clinical outcome after stent implantation. However, these results were limited both by the number of patients included and the use of non-contemporary stent designs. We sought to determine the prognostic value of FFR measurements in a large patient cohort undergoing coronary stent implantation. METHODS: Eighty-nine consecutive patients were enrolled in whom a stent implantation was performed and a pressure wire was used as a guide wire. Patients were followed for at least 6 months. Death, myocardial infarction (MI) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) were considered cardiac events. A FFR > or = 0.94 was regarded as an optimal functional result. RESULTS: A complete follow-up was available in all patents. Pre-interventional FFR increased from 0.66 +/- 0.16 to 0.95 +/- 0.05 (p < 0.0001) after stent implantation. Sixteen (18%) events occurred during follow-up including 10 (11.2%) TVR. Final FFR was significantly higher in patients without compared to patients with an event (0.92 +/- 0.06 vs. 0.96 +/- 0.05, p < 0.003). By univariate analysis, the presence of diabetes mellitus, left ventricular function, residual diameter stenosis and final FFR were associated with a worse clinical outcome. In the multivariate analysis, only the final FFR and left ventricular function remained as significant predictors for cardiac events (relative risk, 3.50; 95% CI: 1.29-9.52, P < 0.014, and 0.97; 95% CI: 0.93-1.00, p = 0.047). CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate in a nonselected patient cohort a strong correlation between FFR values after coronary stenting and subsequent cardiac events. Further studies have to investigate whether outcome after stenting might be improved by guiding the procedure with a pressure guide wire.
