Key result
Acute-setting vFFR predicts FFR ≤ 0.80 in STEMI non-culprit lesions with moderate accuracy.
Why the study?
FFR for non-culprit lesions in STEMI can be influenced by microvascular resistance changes, prompting assessment of angiography-derived vessel FFR (vFFR) as a less-invasive alternative.
Does acute-setting angiography-derived vFFR accurately predict wire-based FFR for intermediate non-culprit lesions in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI?
Cohort (n=111)
Yes
Does acute-setting angiography-derived vFFR accurately predict wire-based FFR for intermediate non-culprit lesions in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI?
Effect estimate: AUC 0.78 (95% CI 0.68-0.89)
p-value: p=<0.001
Acute-setting angiography-derived vFFR shows moderate correlation and diagnostic accuracy compared to wire-based FFR for assessing non-culprit lesions in STEMI patients, with discordance largely driven by microvascular dysfunction.
Should not yet guide non-culprit lesion management in STEMI; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) for non-culprit lesions (NCLs) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) can be influenced by temporary changes in microvascular resistance. Angiography-derived vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) has been tested as a less-invasive alternative. AIMS: The FAST STEMI II study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of acute-setting vFFR vs. FFR for intermediate NCLs in STEMI patients. METHODS: FAST STEMI II is a prospective two-center cohort study including STEMI patients with ≥ 1 intermediate NCL (50-90% diameter stenosis). Patients with cardiogenic shock, prior revascularization of the non-culprit vessel, or aorta-ostial lesions were excluded. Following primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), vFFR, FFR, resting full-cycle ratio (RFR), coronary flow reserve (CFR), and index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) measurements of the NCL were performed. RESULTS: A total of 111 patients were included. Median [25th-75th percentile] vFFR and FFR were 0.83 [0.74-0.88] and 0.83 [0.80-0.90], respectively. vFFR had a moderate to good discriminative ability to predict FFR ≤ 0.80 (AUC: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.68-0.89; p < 0.001) with a moderate correlation (r = 0.54; p < 0.001). Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of vFFR to predict FFR ≤ 0.80 were 72%, 76%, 70%, 53%, and 87%, respectively. Microvascular dysfunction (CFR < 2.0 and IMR ≥ 25) was observed in 33 (31%) patients. In patients with microvascular dysfunction, median vFFR and FFR values were 0.76 [0.71-0.86] and 0.85 [0.77-0.90], respectively (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate correlation between vFFR and FFR in NCLs of patients undergoing primary PCI. Discordance between vFFR and FFR was associated with the presence of microvascular dysfunction. The study was conducted in accordance with Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki and was registered at 22-jun-2023 on clinicaltrials.gov under the identifier NCT05698719.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eijk et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with intermediate non-culprit lesions (n=111). Vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) vs. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) was evaluated on Diagnostic performance of vFFR to predict FFR ≤ 0.80 (AUC 0.78, 95% CI 0.68-0.89, p=<0.001). Acute-setting angiography-derived vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) demonstrated moderate discriminative ability to predict FFR ≤ 0.80 in non-culprit lesions of STEMI patients (AUC 0.78).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: