Key result
Percutaneous coronary intervention in stenoses with fractional flow reserve ≤0.80 yielded a significantly greater increase in hyperemic flow velocity than in those >0.80 (Δ28.5 vs Δ4.6 cm/s; P<0.001).
Why the study?
Does percutaneous coronary intervention improve resting and hyperemic flow velocity in patients with coronary stenoses?
Observational (n=67)
Does percutaneous coronary intervention improve resting and hyperemic flow velocity in patients with coronary stenoses?
Absolute Event Rate: 28.5% vs 4.6%
p-value: p=<0.001
PCI significantly increases hyperemic coronary flow velocity, particularly in physiologically significant stenoses (FFR ≤0.80), while resting flow velocity changes minimally.
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) aims to increase coronary blood flow by relieving epicardial obstruction. However, no study has objectively confirmed this and assessed changes in flow over different phases of the cardiac cycle. We quantified the change in resting and hyperemic flow velocity after PCI in stenoses defined physiologically by fractional flow reserve and other parameters. METHODS AND RESULTS: Seventy-five stenoses (67 patients) underwent paired flow velocity assessment before and after PCI. Flow velocity was measured over the whole cardiac cycle and the wave-free period. Mean fractional flow reserve was 0.68±0.02. Pre-PCI, hyperemic flow velocity is diminished in stenoses classed as physiologically significant compared with those classed nonsignificant (P<0.001). In significant stenoses, flow velocity over the resting wave-free period and hyperemic flow velocity did not differ statistically. After PCI, resting flow velocity over the wave-free period increased little (5.6±1.6 cm/s) and significantly less than hyperemic flow velocity (21.2±3 cm/s; P<0.01). The greatest increase in hyperemic flow velocity was observed when treating stenoses below physiological cut points; treating stenoses with fractional flow reserve ≤0.80 gained Δ28.5±3.8 cm/s, whereas those fractional flow reserve >0.80 had a significantly smaller gain (Δ4.6±2.3 cm/s; P<0.001). The change in pressure-only physiological indices demonstrated a curvilinear relationship to the change in hyperemic flow velocity but was flat for resting flow velocity. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-PCI physiology is strongly associated with post-PCI increase in hyperemic coronary flow velocity. Hyperemic flow velocity increases 6-fold more when stenoses classed as physiologically significant undergo PCI than when nonsignificant stenoses are treated. Resting flow velocity measured over the wave-free period changes at least 4-fold less than hyperemic flow velocity after PCI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nijjer et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Coronary stenosis (n=67). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in stenoses with FFR ≤0.80 vs. PCI in stenoses with FFR >0.80 was evaluated on Change in hyperemic flow velocity (p=<0.001). Percutaneous coronary intervention in stenoses with fractional flow reserve ≤0.80 yielded a significantly greater increase in hyperemic flow velocity than in those >0.80 (Δ28.5 vs Δ4.6 cm/s; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: