Visual-Functional Mismatch Between Coronary Angiography, Fractional Flow Reserve, and Quantitative Coronary Angiography

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Anatomical and functional mismatches are not uncommon in the assessment of coronary lesions. The aim of this study was to identify clinical and lesion-specific factors affecting angiographic, anatomical, and functional mismatch in intermediate coronary lesions. In patients who underwent coronary angiography for clinical reasons, fractional flow reserve (FFR), and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) analyses for intermediate stenotic lesions were performed simultaneously. Mismatches between the measured values were analyzed. A total of 95 intermediate lesions were assessed simultaneously by visual angiography, FFR, and QCA. The visual-FFR mismatch was found in 40% of the lesions while reverse visual-FFR mismatch was determined in nearly 14% of the lesions. Mismatch and reverse mismatch between FFR and QCA parameters were observed in 10 and 23% of the lesions. FFR value was significant in 32% of the lesions while visually significant stenosis was shown in 61% of the lesions. Among the visual-FFR reverse mismatch group, the prevalence of culprit lesions within the left anterior descending (LAD) was significantly higher than other vessels (p value < 0.02). There were high frequencies of angiographic, QCA, and functional mismatches in analyses of intermediate coronary lesions. LAD lesions showed the highest mismatch. Angiographic or QCA estimation of lesion severity has consistently resulted in inappropriate stenting of functionally nonsignificant lesions or undertreatment of significant lesions based on FFR.

• References

• 1 Tobis J, Azarbal B, Slavin L. Assessment of intermediate severity coronary lesions in the catheterization laboratory. 2007; 49 (8) 839-848
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Zijlstra F, van Ommeren J, Reiber JH, Serruys PW. Does the quantitative assessment of coronary artery dimensions predict the physiologic significance of a coronary stenosis?. Circulation 1987; 75 (6) 1154-1161
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Kirkeeide RL, Gould KL, Parsel L. Assessment of coronary stenoses by myocardial perfusion imaging during pharmacologic coronary vasodilation. VII. Validation of coronary flow reserve as a single integrated functional measure of stenosis severity reflecting all its geometric dimensions. J Am Coll Cardiol 1986; 7 (1) 103-113
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Zijlstra F, Fioretti P, Reiber JH, Serruys PW. Which cineangiographically assessed anatomic variable correlates best with functional measurements of stenosis severity? A comparison of quantitative analysis of the coronary cineangiogram with measured coronary flow reserve and exercise/redistribution thallium-201 scintigraphy. J Am Coll Cardiol 1988; 12 (3) 686-691
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Gould KL. Percent coronary stenosis: battered gold standard, pernicious relic or clinical practicality?. J Am Coll Cardiol 1988; 11 (4) 886-888
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Li J, Elrashidi MY, Flammer AJ , et al. Long-term outcomes of fractional flow reserve-guided vs. angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in contemporary practice. Eur Heart J 2013; 34 (18) 1375-1383
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Pijls NH, Tanaka N, Fearon WF. Functional assessment of coronary stenoses: can we live without it?. Eur Heart J 2013; 34 (18) 1335-1344
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Nam CW, Yoon HJ, Cho YK , et al. Outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention in intermediate coronary artery disease: fractional flow reserve-guided versus intravascular ultrasound-guided.. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 3 (8) 812-817
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Toth G, De Bruyne B, Casselman F , et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided versus angiography-guided coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circulation 2013; 128 (13) 1405-1411
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Melikian N, De Bondt P, Tonino P , et al. Fractional flow reserve and myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with angiographic multivessel coronary artery disease. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2010; 3 (3) 307-314
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Hamilos M, Muller O, Cuisset T , et al. Long-term clinical outcome after fractional flow reserve-guided treatment in patients with angiographically equivocal left main coronary artery stenosis. Circulation 2009; 120 (15) 1505-1512
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH , et al; FAME Study Investigators. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 2009; 360 (3) 213-224
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Park SJ, Kang SJ, Ahn JM , et al. Visual-functional mismatch between coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2012; 5 (10) 1029-1036
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Tonino PA, Fearon WF, De Bruyne B , et al. Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55 (25) 2816-2821
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Bartúnek J, Sys SU, Heyndrickx GR, Pijls NH, De Bruyne B. Quantitative coronary angiography in predicting functional significance of stenoses in an unselected patient cohort. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995; 26 (2) 328-334
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Fischer JJ, Samady H, McPherson JA , et al. Comparison between visual assessment and quantitative angiography versus fractional flow reserve for native coronary narrowings of moderate severity. Am J Cardiol 2002; 90 (3) 210-215
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Yong AS, Ng AC, Brieger D, Lowe HC, Ng MK, Kritharides L. Three-dimensional and two-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography, and their prediction of reduced fractional flow reserve. Eur Heart J 2011; 32 (3) 345-353
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Topol EJ, Nissen SE. Our preoccupation with coronary luminology. The dissociation between clinical and angiographic findings in ischemic heart disease. Circulation 1995; 92 (8) 2333-2342
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar