Advertisement

Physiology-Guided Management of Serial/Diffuse Coronary Artery Disease

  • Christopher S. G. MurrayEmail author
  • Tariq Siddiqui
  • Norma Keller
  • Solaiman Chowdhury
  • Tamanna Nahar
Ischemic Heart Disease (D Mukherjee, Section Editor)
  • 58 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Ischemic Heart Disease

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Just over four decades ago, the management of coronary artery disease (CAD) witnessed a major breakthrough with the advent of minimally invasive treatment modalities like angioplasty followed by coronary stenting. Dr. Andreas Gruentzig pioneered this field in 1977 by adding a balloon to the Dotter catheter. From its inception, he was cognizant of the need for measuring pressures before and after balloon inflation in the treated coronary artery, device placement in the treated coronary artery. However, for decades subsequently, emphasis was placed primarily on preprocedural non-invasive tests and angiographic assessment of lesions based on percent diameter stenosis to guide therapeutic interventions. We review the progress of these physiologic advancements in management over the last 20 years, as well as the current state and prospects for the future.

Recent Findings

More recently, clinical features heavily drive the decision whether or not to stent the diseased segment. A little more than two decades ago, a new approach to facilitate the decision whether or not to intervene on intermediate stenoses began to evolve. It became clear that other features besides angiography are important when considering benefit of mechanical intervention. The emphasis shifted to assessment of the physiological significance of coronary lesions, rather than solely anatomical identification of lesions at angiography. Physiological assessments have served to better discriminate potentially flow-limiting lesions, utilizing cutoff measurements to determine which patients would benefit from intervention in addition to medical therapy.

Summary

We have found that there is still need for arrival at a consensus as regards the best practice in the context of physiological assessment of serial stenotic lesions, but that studies do show that techniques currently available are non-inferior to each other, and highly effective.

Keywords

Percutaneous coronary intervention Fractional flow reserve Instantaneous wave-free ratio Flow physiology Revascularization Serial coronary lesions 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Christopher S. G. Murray, Tariq Siddiqui, Norma Keller, Solaiman Chowdhury, and Tamanna Nahar declare that they have no conflict of interest with regard to this publication.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Anderson HV, Roubin GS, Leimgruber PP, Cox WR, Douglas JS Jr, King SB 3rd, et al. Measurement of transstenotic pressure gradient during percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Circulation. 1986;73(6):1223–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pijls NHJ, DeBruyne B, Bech GJ, et al. Coronary pressure measurement to assess the hemodynamic significance of serial stenoses within one coronary artery validation in humans. Circulation. 2000;102(19):2371–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DeBruyne B, Pijls NHJ, Heyndrickx GR, Hodeige D, Kirkeeide R, Gould KL. Pressure-derived fractional flow reserve to assess serial epicardial stenoses: theoretical basis and animal validation. Circulation. 2000;101(15):1840–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jeremias A, Maehara A, Généreux P, Asrress KN, Berry C, de Bruyne B, et al. Multicenter core laboratory comparison of the instantaneous wave-free ratio and resting Pd/Pa with fractional flow reserve: the RESOLVE study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(13):1253–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    •• Modi BN, De Silva K, Rajani R, Curzen N, Perera D. Physiology-guided management of serial coronary artery disease- a review. JAMA Cardiol. 2018;3(5):432–8. This is a recent review on the topic of physiologically directed coronary artery assessment of morbidity in serial stenotic lesions, looking at current best practices. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    •• Davies JE, Sen S, Dehbi HM, et al. Use of the instantaneous wave-free ratio or fractional flow reserve in PCI. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(19):1824–34. This illustration of the DEFINE-FLAIR trial stated that iFR-guided coronary revascularization was non-inferior to FFR-guided revascularization with respect to the risk of major adverse cardiac events, or MACEs. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    •• Gotberg M, Christiansen EH, Gudmundsdottir IJ, iFR SWEDEHEART Investigators, et al. Instantaneous wave-free ratio versus fractional flow reserve to guide PCI. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(19):1813–23. This was an illustration of the iFR SWEDEHEART trial, which concluded that in patients with stable angina, unstable angina or NSTEMI who had an indication for physiologically guided assessment of a stenotic coronary artery, an iFR-guided revascularization strategy was non-inferior to an FFR-guided revascularization strategy with respect to MACEs and was associated with less chest discomfort. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pijls NHJ, Klauss V, Siebert U, Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) Post-Stent Registry Investigators, et al. Coronary pressure measurement after stenting predicts adverse events at follow-up: a multicenter registry. Circulation. 2002;105(25):2950–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Park SJ, Ahn JM, Pijls NHJ, de Bruyne B, Shim EB, Kim YT, et al. Validation of functional state of coronary tandem lesions using computational flow dynamics. Am J Cardiol. 2012;110(11):1578–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim HL, Koo BK, Nam CW, Doh JH, Kim JH, Yang HM, et al. Clinical and physiological outcomes of fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with serial stenoses within one coronary artery. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5(10):1013–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shiono Y, Kubo T, Honda K, Katayama Y, Aoki H, Satogami K, et al. Impact of functional focal versus diffuse coronary artery disease on bypass graft patency. Int J Cardiol. 2016;222:16–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    •• Fearon WF, Yong AS, Lenders G, et al. The impact of downstream coronary stenosis on fractional flow reserve assessment of intermediate left main coronary artery disease: human validation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(3):398–403. This study demonstrated that in the majority of cases, downstream disease has no clinically significant impact on the assessment of FFR across an intermediate LMCA stenosis with the pressure guidewire placed in the non-diseased vessel. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    •• Yamamoto E, Saito N, Matsuo H, et al. Prediction of the true fractional flow reserve of left main coronary artery stenosis with concomitant downstream stenoses: in vitro and in vivo experiments. EuroIntervention. 2016;11(11):e1249–56. This paper looked at the functional impact of downstream coronary stenoses on LMCA, assessing two novel equations which could predict the true FFR of LMCA stenosis and these were demonstrated to be correct; with this, functional impact on downstream stenoses on the LMCA stenosis would become stronger when the downstream stenoses became more severe. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Daniels DV, van’t Veer M, Pijls NHJ, et al. The impact of downstream coronary stenoses on fractional flow reserve assessment of intermediate left main disease. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5(10):1021–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yong ASC, Daniels D, De Bruyne B, et al. Fractional flow reserve assessment of left main stenosis in the presence of downstream coronary stenoses. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6(2):161–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    •• Escaned J, Ryan N, et al. Safety of the deferral of coronary revascularization on the basis of instantaneous wave-free ratio and fractional flow reserve measurements in stable coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndromes. JACC Intervt. 2018;11(15):1437–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2018.05.029. We looked at safety of deferral in that article because the FFR gives physiologic, functional significance of a stable lesion. If a moderate to severe stenosis is present, it would naturally be prudent to revascularize, however if upon physiological assessment it was found that the stenotic lesion was stable, and medical management was a safe and feasible option, then deferment of stenting would be an acceptable option, rather than subject the patient to the possible implications or complications of stenting, including Dual Antiplatelet Therapy or DAPT, the time for neovascularization, and other inherent risks, as opposed to a medical and more conservative approach involving exercise programs, statins and so on. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    •• Matsumura M, Johnson NP, Fearon WF, et al. Accuracy of fractional flow reserve measurements in clinical practice: observations from a core laboratory analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(14):1392–401. This study highlighted the relevance, importance, and frequency of signal drift, showing from core lab analysis that almost 10% of tracings demonstrated waveform artifacts, and an additional 17.5% had signal drift, underlining the regularity of suboptimal FFR measurement occurrence, and highlighting the dire need for attention to detail with these relatively novel techniques. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Seto AH, Tehrani DM, Bharmal MI, Kern MJ. Variations of coronary hemodynamic responses to intravenous adenosine infusion: implications for fractional flow reserve measurements. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;84(3):416–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    •• Johnson NP, Johnson DT, Kirkeeide RL, et al. Repeatability of fractional flow reserve despite variations in systemic and coronary hemodynamics. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(8):1018–27. This article looked at possible variations in FFR due to fluctuations in both systemic and coronary hemodynamics during IV adenosine infusion, positing that three general patterns of Pd/Pa response are produced with associated variability in aortic and coronary pressure and HR during the hyperemic period, but that FFR when appropriately chosen, proved to have a highly reproducible value. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johnson NP, Kirkeeide RL, Asrress KN, Fearon WF, Lockie T, Marques KMJ, et al. Does the instantaneous wave-free ratio approximate the fractional flow reserve? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(13):1428–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kobayashi Y, Johnson NP, Zimmermann FM, CONTRAST study investigators, et al. Agreement of the resting distal to aortic coronary pressure with the instantaneous wave-free ratio. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(17):2105–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    •• Escaned J, Echavarría-Pinto M, et al. Prospective assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of instantaneous wave-free ratio to assess coronary stenosis relevance: results of ADVISE II International, Multicenter Study (Adenosine Vasodilator Independent Stenosis Evaluation II). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(6):824–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j/jcin.2015.01.029. This article was a review of the ADVISE II Trial, which sought to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the iFR to characterize stenotic severity as defined by FFR ≤ 0.80, and stated that the ADVISE II study supports the diagnostic value of iFR in the establishment of functional significance of coronary stenotic lesions, it being complimentary to FFR when utilized in a hybridized iFR-FFR approach. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    •• Kern MJ, Seto AH. A perspective on physiologic assessment of coronary stenoses in series-methods, myths or best practices? JAMA Cardiol. 2018;3(5):368–70. This article was a review of current best practices for physiology directed assessment of serial lesions in coronary artery disease. This article illustrates a study which investigated the clinical outcomes of patients deferred from coronary revascularization based on iFR or FFR measurements in stable angina pectoris and acute coronary syndromes. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cook CM, Ahmad Y, et al. Quantification of the effect of pressure wire drift on the diagnostic performance of fractional flow reserve, instantaneous wave-free ratio, and whole-cycle Pd/Pa. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(4):e002988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Levine GN, Bates ER, et al. ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention-a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation. 2011;124:e574–651.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher S. G. Murray
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tariq Siddiqui
    • 2
  • Norma Keller
    • 3
  • Solaiman Chowdhury
    • 1
  • Tamanna Nahar
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Internal MedicineHarlem Hospital Center/Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Texas Tech University Health Sciences CenterEl PasoUSA
  3. 3.Section of CardiologyBellevue Hospital, NYCNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Section of Cardiology, Department of Internal MedicineHarlem Hospital Center/Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations