Search

There have been no studies comparing clinical outcomes of physiology-guided revascularization in patients with unprotected left main coronary disease (ULMD) between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The aim of this study was to assess the long-term clinical outcomes between PCI and CABG of patients with physiologically significant ULMD. From an international multicenter registry of ULMD patients interrogated with instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), we analyzed data from 151 patients (85 PCI vs. 66 CABG) who underwent revascularization according to the cutoff value of iFR ≤ 0.89. Propensity score matching was employed to adjust for baseline clinical characteristics. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The secondary endpoints were the individual components of the primary endpoint. Mean age was 66.6 (± 9.2) years, 79.2% male. Mean SYNTAX score was 22.6 (± 8.4) and median iFR was 0.83 (IQR 0.74–0.87). After performing propensity score matching analysis, 48 patients treated with CABG were matched to those who underwent PCI. At a median follow-up period of 2.8 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 8.3% in PCI group and 20.8% in CABG group, respectively (HR 3.80; 95% CI 1.04–13.9; p = 0.043). There was no difference in each component of the primary event (p > 0.05 for all). Within the present study, iFR-guided PCI was associated with lower cardiovascular events rate in patients with ULMD and intermediate SYNTAX score, as compared to CABG. Graphical abstract State-of-the-art PCI vs. CABG for ULMD. Study design and primary endpoint in patients with physiologically significant ULMD. MACE was defined as the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. The blue line denotes the PCI arm, and the red line denotes the CABG arm. PCI was associated with significantly lower risk of MACE than CABG. CABG: coronary artery bypass grafting; iFR: instantaneous wave-free ratio; MACE: major adverse cardiovascular events; PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention; ULMD: unprotected left main coronary artery disease.

Item does not contain fulltext BACKGROUND: Coronary blood flow in humans is known to be predominantly diastolic. Small studies in animals and humans suggest that this is less pronounced or even reversed in the right coronary artery (RCA). AIMS: This study aimed to characterise the phasic patterns of coronary flow in the left versus right coronary arteries of patients undergoing invasive physiological assessment. METHODS: We analysed data from the Iberian-Dutch-English Collaborators (IDEAL) study. A total of 482 simultaneous pressure and flow measurements from 301 patients were included in our analysis. RESULTS: On average, coronary flow was higher in diastole both at rest and during hyperaemia in both the RCA and LCA (mean diastolic-to-systolic velocity ratio [DSVR] was, respectively, 1.85±0.70, 1.76±0.58, 1.53±0.34 and 1.58±0.43 for LCA(rest), LCA(hyp), RCA(rest) and RCA(hyp), p

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has become the gold standard for diagnosing ischemia in angiographically intermediate epicardial coronary artery stenosis. This study investigated the clinical outcomes and predictors of revascularization deferral based on FFR.In this retrospective cohort study, we assessed 474 lesions (440 patients) where revascularization was deferred based on the FFR value. Minimum lumen diameter and %-diameter stenosis were measured. Calcification was graded as none, mild, moderate, or heavy. The synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with taxus and cardiac surgery (SYNTAX) score I was also determined. The primary outcome was ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) in deferred lesions within 3 years. Patients were also assigned into two groups based on FFR value.The average age of the patients was 69.7±10.4 years. The average FFR value was 0.86±0.05. Stable angina pectoris was noted in 298 (67.7%) cases, and in-stent restenosis (ISR) was present in 28 (5.9%). The average SYNTAX score was 7.2±4.2. The 3-year ischemia-driven TLR was 18 lesions (3.8%). Cox proportional hazard model revealed that the SYNTAX score and ISR were independent predictors for TLR in deferred lesions [hazard ratio (HR) =1.10, 95% confidential interval (CI): 1.01-1.19, P=0.03; HR =6.33; 95% CI: 2.25-17.8, P0.01, respectively]. The deferral group, with a low FFR value, tended to have higher TLR rates than other groups.Lesions with lower FFR values were associated with a higher incidence of ischemia-driven TLR than those with higher FFR values. SYNTAX score and ISR were predictors for ischemia-driven TLR at 3 years in the deferred lesions.

Objectives-\ud Adenosine hyperemia is an integral component of the physiological assessment of obstructive coronary artery disease in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). The aim of this study was to compare systemic, coronary and microcirculatory hemodynamics between intravenous (IV) adenosine hyperemia versus physical exercise stress in patients with CCS and coronary stenosis.\ud Methods-\ud Twenty-three patients (mean age, 60.6 ± 8.1 years) with CCS and single-vessel coronary stenosis underwent cardiac catheterization. Continuous trans-stenotic coronary pressure-flow measurements were performed during: i) IV adenosine hyperemia, and ii) physical exercise using a catheter-table-mounted supine ergometer. Systemic, coronary and microcirculatory hemodynamic responses were compared between IV adenosine and exercise stimuli.\ud Results-\ud Mean stenosis diameter was 74.6% ± 10.4. Median (interquartile range) FFR was 0.54 (0.44–0.72). At adenosine hyperemia versus exercise stress, mean aortic pressure (Pa, 91 ± 16 mmHg vs 99 ± 15 mmHg, p < 0.0001), distal coronary pressure (Pd, 58 ± 21 mmHg vs 69 ± 24 mmHg, p < 0.0001), trans-stenotic pressure ratio (Pd/Pa, 0.63 ± 0.18 vs 0.69 ± 0.19, p < 0.0001), microvascular resistance (MR, 2.9 ± 2.2 mmHg.cm−1.sec−1 vs 4.2 ± 1.7 mmHg.cm−1.sec−1, p = 0.001), heart rate (HR, 80 ± 15 bpm vs 85 ± 21 bpm, p = 0.02) and rate-pressure product (RPP, 7522 ± 2335 vs 9077 ± 3200, p = 0.0001) were all lower. Conversely, coronary flow velocity (APV, 23.7 ± 9.5 cm/s vs 18.5 ± 6.8 cm/s, p = 0.02) was higher. Additionally, temporal changes in Pa, Pd, Pd/Pa, MR, HR, RPP and APV during IV adenosine hyperemia versus exercise were all significantly different (p < 0.05 for all).\ud Conclusions-\ud In patients with CCS and coronary stenosis, invasive hemodynamic responses differed markedly between IV adenosine hyperemia versus physical exercise stress. These differences were observed across systemic, coronary and microcirculatory hemodynamics.