| 1. |
- Thim, Troels, et al.
(författare)
-
Agreement between nonculprit stenosis follow-up iFR and FFR after STEMI (iSTEMI substudy)
- 2020
-
Ingår i: BMC Research Notes. - : BioMed Central. - 1756-0500. ; 13:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To evaluate agreement between instantaneous wave free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) for the functional assessment of nonculprit coronary stenoses at staged follow-up after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).RESULTS: We measured iFR and FFR at staged follow-up in 112 STEMI patients with 146 nonculprit stenoses. Median interval between STEMI and follow-up was 16 (interquartile range 5-32) days. Agreement between iFR and FFR was 77% < 5 days after STEMI and 86% after ≥ 5 days (p = 0.19). Among cases with disagreement, the proportion of cases with hemodynamically significant iFR and non-significant FFR were different when assessed < 5 days (5 in 8, 63%) versus ≥ 5 days (3 in 15, 20%) after STEMI (p = 0.04). Overall classification agreement between iFR and FFR was comparable to that observed in stable patients. Time interval between STEMI and follow-up evaluation may impact agreement between iFR and FFR.
|
|
| 2. |
- Thim, Troels, et al.
(författare)
-
Instantaneous wave-free ratio cutoff values for nonculprit stenosis classification in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (an iSTEMI substudy)
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Coronary Artery Disease. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0954-6928 .- 1473-5830. ; 31:5, s. 411-416
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: The instantaneous wave-free ratio cutoff value of <0.90 for hemodynamic significance of coronary stenoses has been validated in stable patients. We examined different cutoff values in the evaluation of nonculprit stenoses in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.Methods: We measured instantaneous wave-free ratio across nonculprit stenoses in the acute setting and at follow-up in 120 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and 157 nonculprit stenoses, of which, 113 patients with 147 nonculprit stenoses completed follow-up.Results: The prevalence of nonculprit stenosis hemodynamic significance was 52% in the acute setting and 41% at follow-up. With follow-up, instantaneous wave-free ratio as reference, acute instantaneous wave-free ratio >0.90 had a negative predictive value of 89%. Acute instantaneous wave-free ratio <0.90 had a positive predictive value of 68%. Acute instantaneous wave-free ratio >0.93 had a negative predictive value of 100%. Acute instantaneous wave-free ratio <0.86 and <0.83 had positive predictive values of 71 and 77%. Using acute instantaneous wave-free ratio <0.90 as cutoff for hemodynamic significance yielded the highest degree of classification agreement between acute and follow-up instantaneous wave-free ratio.Conclusions: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, acute instantaneous wave-free ratio with the cutoff values <0.90 for hemodynamic significance appears optimal in the evaluation of nonculprit stenoses and has a high negative predictive value and a moderate positive predictive value.
|
|
| 3. |
- Thim, Troels, et al.
(författare)
-
Nonculprit Stenosis Evaluation Using Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction
- 2017
-
Ingår i: JACC. - New York, USA : Elsevier. - 1936-8798 .- 1876-7605. ; 10:24, s. 2528-2535
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the level of agreement between acute instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) measured across nonculprit stenoses in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and iFR measured at a staged follow-up procedure.BACKGROUND: Acute full revascularization of nonculprit stenoses in STEMI is debated and currently guided by angiography. Acute functional assessment of nonculprit stenoses may be considered.METHODS: Immediately after successful primary culprit intervention for STEMI, nonculprit coronary stenoses were evaluated with iFR and left untreated. Follow-up evaluation with iFR was performed at a later stage. iFR <0.90 was considered hemodynamically significant.RESULTS: One hundred twenty patients with 157 nonculprit lesions were included. Median acute iFR was 0.89 (interquartile range: 0.82 to 0.94; n = 156), and median follow-up iFR was 0.91 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.86 to 0.96; n = 147). Classification agreement was 78% between acute and follow-up iFR. The negative predictive value of acute iFR was 89%. Median time from acute to follow-up evaluation was 16 days (IQR: 5 to 32 days). With follow-up within 5 days after STEMI, no difference was observed between acute and follow-up iFR, and classification agreement was 89%. With follow-up ≥16 days after STEMI, acute iFR was lower than follow-up iFR, and classification agreement was 70%.CONCLUSIONS: Acute iFR evaluation appeared valid for ruling out significant nonculprit stenoses in patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The time interval from acute to follow-up iFR influenced classification agreement, suggesting that inherent physiological disarrangements during STEMI may contribute to classification disagreement.
|
|
