Why the study?
Coronary lesion assessment using fractional flow reserve and instantaneous flow reserve reduces cardiovascular events, but differences in coronary flow velocity and resistance compared to the intracoronary electrocardiogram-triggered pressure ratio had not been evaluated.
Does the ICE-T index identify a phase of lower and more stable intracoronary resistance compared to iFR and dPR in patients undergoing physiological assessment of coronary lesions?
Does the ICE-T index identify a phase of lower and more stable intracoronary resistance compared to iFR and dPR in patients undergoing physiological assessment of coronary lesions?
The ICE-T index identifies a phase of lower and more stable intracoronary resistance compared to iFR, suggesting it may be theoretically superior for the physiological assessment of coronary lesions.
ICE-T differs from iFR in flow velocity and resistance; small observational data leaves open validation for lesion assessment.
Assessment of coronary artery lesions using the fractional flow reserve and instantaneous flow reserve (iFR) measurements has been found to reduce the incidence of further cardiovascular events. Here, we investigated differences in terms of coronary flow velocity and resistance within the analysis interval between the iFR and the intracoronary electrocardiogram (IC-ECG)-triggered distal/aortic pressure (Pd/Pa) ratio (ICE-T). We enrolled 23 consecutive patients (n = 33 stenoses) who required coronary flow measurements. ICE-T was defined as the average Pd/Pa ratio in the period corresponding to the isoelectric line of the IC-ECG. We compared the index value, flow velocity, and intracoronary resistance during the analysis intervals of the iFR and the ICE-T, both at rest and under hyperemia. ICE-T values and ICE-T intracoronary resistance were both found to be significantly lower, whereas flow velocity was significantly higher than those of the iFR at both rest and under hyperemia (P < 0.001), and all fluctuations in ICE-T values were also significantly smaller than those in the iFR. In conclusion, the ICE-T appears theoretically superior to pressure-dependent indices for analyzing phases with low and stable resistance, without an increase in invasiveness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nakayama et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: