DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Physiologic approach for coronary intervention

  • Fearon, William F. (Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University Medical Center)
  • Published : 2013.01.01

Abstract

When invasively assessing coronary artery disease, the primary goal should be to determine whether the disease is causing a patient's symptoms and whether it is likely to cause future cardiac events. The presence of myocardial ischemia is our best gauge of whether a lesion is responsible for symptoms and likely to result in a future cardiac event. In the catheterization laboratory, fractional flow reserve (FFR) measured with a coronary pressure wire is the reference standard for identifying ischemia-producing lesions. Its spatial resolution is unsurpassed with it not only being vessel-specific, but also lesion-specific. There is now a wealth of data supporting the accuracy of measuring FFR to identify ischemia-producing lesions. FFR-guided percutaneous coronary intervention of these lesions results in improved outcomes and saves resources. Non-hemodynamically significant lesions can be safely managed medically with a low rate of subsequent cardiac events.

Keywords

References

  1. Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Shaw LJ, et al. Incremental prognostic value of myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography for the prediction of cardiac death: differential stratification for risk of cardiac death and myocardial infarction. Circulation 1998;97:535-543. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.97.6.535
  2. Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Maron DJ, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention to reduce ischemic burden: results from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial nuclear substudy. Circulation 2008;117:1283-1291. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.743963
  3. Pijls NH, van Schaardenburgh P, Manoharan G, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally nonsignificant stenosis: 5-year follow-up of the DEFER Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:2105-2111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2007.01.087
  4. Lima RS, Watson DD, Goode AR, et al. Incremental value of combined perfusion and function over perfusion alone by gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging for detection of severe three-vessel coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;42:64-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(03)00562-X
  5. Meijboom WB, Van Mieghem CA, van Pelt N, et al. Comprehensive assessment of coronary artery stenoses: computed tomography coronary angiography versus conventional coronary angiography and correlation with fractional flow reserve in patients with stable angina. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:636-643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2008.05.024
  6. Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 2009;360:213-224. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0807611
  7. Pijls NH, van Son JA, Kirkeeide RL, De Bruyne B, Gould KL. Experimental basis of determining maximum coronary, myocardial, and collateral blood flow by pressure measurements for assessing functional stenosis severity before and after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Circulation 1993;87:1354-1367. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.87.4.1354
  8. Pijls NH, De Bruyne B, Peels K, et al. Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of coronary-artery stenoses. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1703-1708. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199606273342604
  9. Kern MJ, Lerman A, Bech JW, et al. Physiological assessment of coronary artery disease in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Committee on Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Catheterization, Council on Clinical Cardiology. Circulation 2006;114:1321-1341. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.177276
  10. Bech GJ, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve to determine the appropriateness of angioplasty in moderate coronary stenosis: a randomized trial. Circulation 2001;103:2928-2934. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.103.24.2928
  11. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2012;367:991-1001. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1205361
  12. Lindstaedt M. Patient stratification in left main coronary artery disease: rationale from a contemporary perspective. Int J Cardiol 2008;130:326-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2008.05.019
  13. Hamilos M, Muller O, Cuisset T, et al. Long-term clinical outcome after fractional f low reserve-guided treatment in patients with angiographically equivocal left main coronary artery stenosis. Circulation 2009;120:1505-1512. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.850073
  14. Pijls NH, Fearon WF, Tonino PA, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: 2-year follow-up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;56:177-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2010.04.012
  15. 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;55:2816-2821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.11.096
  16. Kern MJ, Samady H. Current concepts of integrated coronary physiology in the catheterization laboratory. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:173-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.06.062
  17. Ntalianis A, Sels JW, Davidavicius G, et al. Fractional flow reserve for the assessment of nonculprit coronary artery stenoses in patients with acute myocardial infarction. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2010;3:1274-1281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2010.08.025

Cited by

  1. Ischemia-guided Revascularization for Stable Ischemic Heart Disease vol.87, pp.6, 2013, https://doi.org/10.3904/kjm.2014.87.6.675
  2. Geographic and demographic variabilities of quantitative parameters in stress myocardial computed tomography perfusion vol.32, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2016.012