Derivation and validation of a novel functional FFRCT score incorporating the burden of coronary stenosis severity and flow impairment to predict clinical events.

BACKGROUND: A score combining the burden of stenosis severity on coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and flow impairment by fractional flow reserve derived from computed tomography (FFRCT) may be a better predictor of clinical events than either parameter alone. METHODS: The Functional FFRCT Score (FFS) combines CCTA and FFRCT parameters in an allocated point-based system. The feasibility of the FFS was assessed in cohort of 72 stable chest pain patients with matched CCTA and FFRCT datasets. Validation was performed using 2 cohorts: (a) 4468 patients from the ADVANCE Registry to define its association with revascularization and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE); (b) 212 patients from the FORECAST trial to determine predictors of MACE. RESULTS: The median calculation time for the FFS was 10 (interquartile range 6-17) seconds, with strong intra-operator and inter-operator agreement (Cohen's Kappa 0.89 (±0.37, p â€‹< â€‹0.001) and 0.83 (±0.04, p â€‹< â€‹0.001, respectively). The FFS correlated strongly with both the CT-SYNTAX and the Functional CT-SYNTAX scores (rS â€‹= â€‹0.808 for both, p â€‹< â€‹0.001). In the ADVANCE cohort the FFS had good discriminatory abilities for revascularization with an area under the curve of 0.82, 95 â€‹% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-0.84, p â€‹< â€‹0.001. Patients in the highest FFS tertile had significantly higher rates of revascularization (61 â€‹% vs 5 â€‹%, p â€‹< â€‹0.001) and MACE (1.9 â€‹% vs 0.5 â€‹%, p â€‹= â€‹0.001) compared with the lowest FFS tertile. In the FORECAST cohort the FFS was an independent predictor of MACE at 9-month follow-up (hazard ratio 1.04, 95 â€‹% CI 1.01-1.08, p â€‹< â€‹0.01). CONCLUSION: The FFS is a quick-to-calculate and reproducible score, associated with revascularization and MACE in two distinct populations of stable symptomatic patients.

Systematic coronary physiology improves level of agreement in diagnostic coronary angiography.

OBJECTIVE: The training of interventional cardiologists (ICs), non-interventional cardiologists (NICs) and cardiac surgeons (CSs) differs, and this may be reflected in their interpretation of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and management plan. Availability of systematic coronary physiology might result in more homogeneous interpretation and management strategy compared with ICA alone. METHODS: 150 coronary angiograms from patients with stable chest pain were presented independently to three NICs, three ICs and three CSs. By consensus, each group graded (1) coronary disease severity and (2) management plan, using options: (a) optimal medical therapy alone, (b) percutaneous coronary intervention, (c) coronary artery bypass graft or (d) more investigation required. Each group was then provided with fractional flow reserve (FFR) from all major vessels and asked to repeat the analysis. RESULTS: There was only 'fair' level of agreement of management plan among ICs, NICs and CSs (kappa 0.351, 95% CI 0.295-0.408, p<0.001) based on ICA alone (complete agreement in 35% of cases), which almost doubled to 'good' level (kappa 0.635, 95% CI 0.572-0.697, p<0.001) when comprehensive FFR was available (complete agreement in 66% of cases). Overall, the consensus management plan changed in 36.7%, 52% and 37.3% of cases for ICs, NICs and CSs, respectively, when FFR data were available. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ICA alone, the availability of systematic FFR of all major coronary arteries produced a significantly more concordant interpretation and more homogeneous management plan among IC, NIC and CS specialists. Comprehensive physiological assessment may be of value in routine care for Heart Team decision-making. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01070771.

White-coat hypertension/effect is associated with higher arterial stiffness and stroke events.

OBJECTIVES: The risk profile of white-coat hypertension/effect (WCH/E) remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between WCH/E, markers of cardiovascular risk and cerebrovascular events. METHODS: This is a sub-group analysis of The Arterial Stiffness In lacunar Stroke and Transient ischemic attack (ASIST) study, which recruited 96 patients aged at least 40 years old with a diagnosis of transient ischemic attack or lacunar stroke in the preceding 14 days. Thirty-two patients with target blood pressure (clinic blood pressure <140/90 mmHg and daytime ambulatory blood pressure <135/85 mmHg) and 30 patients with WCH/E (clinic blood pressure ≥140/90 mmHg and daytime ambulatory blood pressure <135/85 mmHg) were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Patients with WCH/E were older and had a higher BMI. Central SBP (145 ±â€Š13 vs. 118 ±â€Š8 mmHg, P < 0.001) and DBP (82 ±â€Š8 vs. 76 ±â€Š7 mmHg, P = 0.004) were higher in those with WCH/E. They also had higher arterial stiffness measured by carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (11.9 ±â€Š3.0 vs. 9.6 ±â€Š2.3 m/s, P = 0.002) and cardio-ankle vascular index (10.3 ±â€Š1.3 vs. 9.4 ±â€Š1.7, P = 0.027). Regression analysis showed an independent relationship between WCH/E and both measures of arterial stiffness. Lacunar strokes were more prevalent in those with WCH/E (47 vs. 22%, P = 0.039) and individuals in this group were more likely to have had a lacunar stroke than a transient ischemic attack (odds ratio 9.6, 95% CI 1.5-62.6, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients with lacunar stroke and transient ischemic attack, WCH/E was associated with elevated markers of cardiovascular risk and a higher prevalence of lacunar stroke. These results suggest that WCH/E is associated with adverse cardiovascular risk.

Current status of white coat hypertension: where are we?

White coat hypertension (WCH) is characterised by an elevated clinic blood pressure (BP) with normal ambulatory or home BP. It is well recognised in clinical practice and occurs in approximately one-third of untreated patients with elevated clinic BP. Current evidence suggests that WCH is associated with cardiovascular risk factors, including the development of sustained hypertension and the presence of target organ damage. However, its effects on cardiovascular outcomes remain a matter of debate. There is also insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to determine whether WCH warrants treatment. This narrative review aims to provide an update on the current understanding of WCH. It focuses on the clinical characteristics and potential implications of WCH, its relationship to cardiovascular risk and the evidence regarding treatment. Gaps in existing research are also highlighted.