Why the study?
Angiography-derived computational physiology offers an alternative to pressure wires, but its reliability in severe aortic stenosis is poorly understood.
Does single-view angiography-derived physiology accurately predict wire-based fractional flow reserve and microvascular resistance in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI?
Observational (n=123)
Does single-view angiography-derived physiology accurately predict wire-based fractional flow reserve and microvascular resistance in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI?
Single-view angiography-derived physiology provides a highly accurate and reliable alternative to wire-based FFR for assessing coronary stenosis severity in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI.
BACKGROUND: Angiography-derived computational physiology is an appealing alternative to pressure-wire coronary physiology assessment. However, little is known about its reliability in the setting of severe aortic stenosis. This study sought to provide an integrated assessment of epicardial and microvascular coronary circulation by means of single-view angiography-derived physiology in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). METHODS: Pre-TAVI angiographic projections of 198 stenotic coronary arteries (123 patients) were analyzed by means of Murray’s law-based quantitative flow ratio and angiography microvascular resistance. Wire-based reference measurements were available for comparison: fractional flow reserve (FFR) in all cases, instantaneous wave-free ratio in 148, and index of microvascular resistance in 42 arteries. RESULTS: No difference in terms of the number of ischemia-causing stenoses was detected between FFR ≤0.80 and Murray’s law-based quantitative flow ratio ≤0.80 (19.7% versus 19.2%; P =0.899), while this was significantly higher when instantaneous wave-free ratio ≤0.89 (44.6%; P =0.001) was used. The accuracy of Murray’s law-based quantitative flow ratio ≤0.80 in predicting pre-TAVI FFR ≤0.80 was significantly higher than the accuracy of instantaneous wave-free ratio ≤0.89 (93.4% versus 77.0%; P =0.001), driven by a higher positive predictive value (86.9% versus 50%). Similar findings were observed when considering post-TAVI FFR ≤0.80 as reference. In 82 cases with post-TAVI angiographic projections, Murray’s law-based quantitative flow ratio values remained stable, with a low rate of reclassification of stenosis significance (9.9%), similar to FFR and instantaneous wave-free ratio. Angiography microvascular resistance demonstrated a significant correlation (Rho=0.458; P =0.002) with index of microvascular resistance, showing an area under the curve of 0.887 (95% CI, 0.752–0.964) in predicting index of microvascular resistance ≥25. CONCLUSIONS: Angiography-derived physiology provides a valid, reliable, and systematic assessment of the coronary circulation in a complex scenario, such as severe aortic stenosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fezzi et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Severe aortic stenosis (n=123). Murray's law-based quantitative flow ratio (angiography-derived physiology) vs. Instantaneous wave-free ratio and fractional flow reserve (wire-based physiology) was evaluated on Accuracy in predicting pre-TAVI FFR ≤0.80 (p=0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:
More on TAVR in low-risk patientsMore from Circulation Cardiovascular Interventions