| 1. |
- Ahmad, Yousif, et al.
(författare)
-
Determining the Predominant Lesion in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and Coronary Stenoses : A Multicenter Study Using Intracoronary Pressure and Flow
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Circulation. Cardiovascular Interventions. - 1941-7632. ; 12:12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) often have coronary artery disease. Both the aortic valve and the coronary disease influence the blood flow to the myocardium and its ability to respond to stress; leading to exertional symptoms. In this study, we aim to quantify the effect of severe AS on the coronary microcirculation and determine if this is influenced by any concomitant coronary disease. We then compare this to the effect of coronary stenoses on the coronary microcirculation. METHODS: Group 1: 55 patients with severe AS and intermediate coronary stenoses treated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) were included. Group 2: 85 patients with intermediate coronary stenoses and no AS treated with percutaneous coronary intervention were included. Coronary pressure and flow were measured at rest and during hyperemia in both groups, before and after TAVI (group 1) and before and after percutaneous coronary intervention (group 2). RESULTS: Microvascular resistance over the wave-free period of diastole increased significantly post-TAVI (pre-TAVI, 2.71±1.4 mm Hg·cm·s-1 versus post-TAVI 3.04±1.6 mm Hg·cm·s-1 [P=0.03]). Microvascular reserve over the wave-free period of diastole significantly improved post-TAVI (pre-TAVI 1.88±1.0 versus post-TAVI 2.09±0.8 [P=0.003]); this was independent of the severity of the underlying coronary stenosis. The change in microvascular resistance post-TAVI was equivalent to that produced by stenting a coronary lesion with an instantaneous wave-free ratio of ≤0.74. CONCLUSIONS: TAVI improves microcirculatory function regardless of the severity of underlying coronary disease. TAVI for severe AS produces a coronary hemodynamic improvement equivalent to the hemodynamic benefit of stenting coronary stenoses with instantaneous wave-free ratio values <0.74. Future trials of physiology-guided revascularization in severe AS may consider using this value to guide treatment of concomitant coronary artery disease.
|
|
| 2. |
- Andersen, Birgitte Krogsgaard, et al.
(författare)
-
Quantitative flow ratio versus fractional flow reserve for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention: design and rationale of the randomised FAVOR III Europe Japan trial.
- 2023
-
Ingår i: EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. - 1969-6213.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a computation of fractional flow reserve (FFR) based on invasive coronary angiographic images. Calculating QFR is less invasive than measuring FFR and may be associated with lower costs. Current evidence supports the call for an adequately powered randomised comparison of QFR and FFR for the evaluation of intermediate coronary stenosis. The aim of the FAVOR III Europe Japan trial is to investigate if a QFR-based diagnostic strategy yields a non-inferior 12-month clinical outcome compared with a standard FFR-guided strategy in the evaluation of patients with intermediary coronary stenosis. FAVOR III Europe Japan is an investigator-initiated, randomised, clinical outcome, non-inferiority trial scheduled to randomise 2,000 patients with either 1) stable angina pectoris and intermediate coronary stenosis, or 2) indications for functional assessment of at least 1 non-culprit lesion after acute myocardial infarction. Up to 40 international centres will randomise patients to either a QFR-based or a standard FFR-based diagnostic strategy. The primary endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events is a composite of all-cause mortality, any myocardial infarction, and any unplanned coronary revascularisation at 12 months. QFR could emerge as an adenosine- and wire-free alternative to FFR, making the functional evaluation of intermediary coronary stenosis less invasive and more cost-effective.
|
|
| 3. |
- Byrne, Robert A., et al.
(författare)
-
Report of a European Society of Cardiology-European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions task force on the evaluation of coronary stents in Europe : executive summary
- 2015
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 36:38, s. 2608-2620
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The evaluation for European Union market approval of coronary stents falls under the Medical Device Directive that was adopted in 1993. Specific requirements for the assessment of coronary stents are laid out in supplementary advisory documents. In response to a call by the European Commission to make recommendations for a revision of the advisory document on the evaluation of coronary stents (Appendix 1 of MEDDEV 2.7.1), the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) established a Task Force to develop an expert advisory report. As basis for its report, the ESC-EAPCI Task Force reviewed existing processes, established a comprehensive list of all coronary drug-eluting stents that have received a CE mark to date, and undertook a systematic review of the literature of all published randomized clinical trials evaluating clinical and angiographic outcomes of coronary artery stents between 2002 and 2013. Based on these data, the TF provided recommendations to inform a new regulatory process for coronary stents. The main recommendations of the task force include implementation of a standardized non-clinical assessment of stents and a novel clinical evaluation pathway for market approval. The two-stage clinical evaluation plan includes recommendation for an initial pre-market trial with objective performance criteria (OPC) benchmarking using invasive imaging follow-up leading to conditional CE-mark approval and a subsequent mandatory, large-scale randomized trial with clinical endpoint evaluation leading to unconditional CE-mark. The data analysis from the systematic review of the Task Force may provide a basis for determination of OPC for use in future studies. This paper represents an executive summary of the Task Force's report.
|
|
| 4. |
- Byrne, Robert A, et al.
(författare)
-
Report of an ESC-EAPCI Task Force on the evaluation and use of bioresorbable scaffolds for percutaneous coronary intervention : executive summary
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 39:18, s. 1591-1601
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- A previous Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) provided a report on recommendations for the non-clinical and clinical evaluation of coronary stents. Following dialogue with the European Commission, the Task Force was asked to prepare an additional report on the class of devices known as bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS). Five BRS have CE-mark approval for use in Europe. Only one device-the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold-has published randomized clinical trial data and this data show inferior outcomes to conventional drug-eluting stents (DES) at 2-3 years. For this reason, at present BRS should not be preferred to conventional DES in clinical practice. The Task Force recommends that new BRS devices should undergo systematic non-clinical testing according to standardized criteria prior to evaluation in clinical studies. A clinical evaluation plan should include data from a medium sized, randomized trial against DES powered for a surrogate end point of clinical efficacy. Manufacturers of successful devices receive CE-mark approval for use and must have an approved plan for a large-scale randomized clinical trial with planned long-term follow-up.
|
|
| 5. |
- Byrne, Robert A., et al.
(författare)
-
Report of an ESC-EAPCI Task Force on the evaluation and use of bioresorbable scaffolds for percutaneous coronary intervention : executive summary
- 2018
-
Ingår i: EuroIntervention. - : EUROPA EDITION. - 1774-024X .- 1969-6213. ; 13:13, s. 1574-1586
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- A previous Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) provided a report on recommendations for the non-clinical and clinical evaluation of coronary stents. Following dialogue with the European Commission, the Task Force was asked to prepare an additional report on the class of devices known as bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS). Five BRS have CE-mark approval for use in Europe. Only one device - the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold - has published randomized clinical trial data and this data show inferior outcomes to conventional drug-eluting stents (DES) at 2-3 years. For this reason, at present BRS should not be preferred to conventional DES in clinical practice. The Task Force recommends that new BRS devices should undergo systematic non-clinical testing according to standardized criteria prior to evaluation in clinical studies. A clinical evaluation plan should include data from a medium sized, randomized trial against DES powered for a surrogate end point of clinical efficacy. Manufacturers of successful devices receive CE-mark approval for use and must have an approved plan for a large-scale randomized clinical trial with planned long-term follow-up.
|
|
| 6. |
- Cerrato, Enrico, et al.
(författare)
-
Revascularization Deferral of Nonculprit Stenoses on the Basis of Fractional Flow Reserve : 1-Year Outcomes of 8,579 Patients
- 2020
-
Ingår i: JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. - : Elsevier BV. - 1936-8798. ; 13:16, s. 1894-1903
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Intracoronary physiology is increasingly used in nonculprit stenoses of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). However, evidence regarding the safety of fractional flow reserve-based deferral in patients with ACS, compared with patients with stable angina pectoris (SAP), is scarce. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of revascularization deferral on the basis of fractional flow reserve interrogation of nonculprit lesions in patients with ACS. Methods: A pooled analysis was performed of individual patient data included in 5 large international published studies on physiology-guided revascularization. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization) at 1-year follow-up. Clinical outcomes of patients with ACS and SAP were compared in both the deferred and the revascularized groups. Results: A total of 8,579 patients were included in the analysis, 6,461 with SAP and 2,118 with ACS and nonculprit stenoses. Using fractional flow reserve, revascularization was deferred in 5,129 patients (59.8%) and performed in 3,450 patients (40.2%). In the deferred ACS group, a higher MACE rate was observed compared with the deferred SAP group (4.46% vs. 2.83%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17 to 2.53; p < 0.01). In particular, early unplanned revascularization (3.34% and 2.04% in ACS and SAP; adjusted HR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.09 to 3.00; p = 0.02) contributed to this excess in MACE but the difference between the ACS and SAP groups did not reach statistical significance. On the contrary, no differences in outcomes linked to clinical presentation were found in treated patients (MACE rate 6.51% vs. 6.20%; adjusted HR: 1.21; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.26; p = 0.24). Conclusions: Patients with ACS in whom revascularization of nonculprit lesions was deferred on the basis of fractional flow reserve have more MACE at 1 year compared with patients with SAP with deferred revascularization. Unplanned revascularization mainly contributed to this excess of MACE.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Escaned, Javier, et al.
(författare)
-
Applied coronary physiology for planning and guidance of percutaneous coronary interventions. A clinical consensus statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) of the European Society of Cardiology
- 2023
-
Ingår i: EuroIntervention. - : Europa Digital & Publishing. - 1774-024X .- 1969-6213. ; 19:6, s. 464-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The clinical value of fractional flow reserve and non-hyperaemic pressure ratios are well established in determining an indication for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). In addition, over the last 5 years we have witnessed a shift towards the use of physio-logy to enhance procedural planning, assess post-PCI functional results, and guide PCI optimisation. In this regard, clinical studies have reported compelling data supporting the use of longitudinal vessel analysis, obtained with pressure guidewire pullbacks, to better understand how obstructive CAD contributes to myocardial ischaemia, to establish the likelihood of functionally successful PCI, to identify the presence and location of residual flow-limiting stenoses and to predict long-term outcomes. The introduction of new functional coronary angiography tools, which merge angiographic information with fluid dynamic equations to deliver information equivalent to intracoronary pressure measurements, are now available and potentially also applicable to these endeavours. Furthermore, the ability of longitudinal vessel analysis to predict the functional results of stenting has played an integral role in the evolving field of simulated PCI. Nevertheless, it is important to have an awareness of the value and challenges of physiology-guided PCI in specific clinical and anatomical contexts. The main aim of this European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions clinical consensus statement is to offer up-to-date evidence and expert opin-ion on the use of applied coronary physiology for procedural PCI planning, disease pattern recognition and post-PCI optimisation.
|
|
| 9. |
- Escaned, Javier, et al.
(författare)
-
Safety of the Deferral of Coronary Revascularization on the Basis of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements in Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes
- 2018
-
Ingår i: JACC. - : Elsevier. - 1936-8798 .- 1876-7605. ; 11:15, s. 1437-1449
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients deferred from coronary revascularization on the basis of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements in stable angina pectoris (SAP) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS). BACKGROUND Assessment of coronary stenosis severity with pressure guidewires is recommended to determine the need for myocardial revascularization. METHODS The safety of deferral of coronary revascularization in the pooled per-protocol population (n = 4,486) of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) and iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome) randomized clinical trials was investigated. Patients were stratified according to revascularization decision making on the basis of iFR or FFR and to clinical presentation (SAP or ACS). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS Coronary revascularization was deferred in 2,130 patients. Deferral was performed in 1,117 patients (50%) in the iFR group and 1,013 patients (45%) in the FFR group (p < 0.01). At 1 year, the MACE rate in the deferred population was similar between the iFR and FFR groups (4.12% vs. 4.05%; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 1.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 1.79; p = 0.60). A clinical presentation with ACS was associated with a higher MACE rate compared with SAP in deferred patients (5.91% vs. 3.64% in ACS and SAP, respectively; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 0.61 in favor of SAP; 95% confidence interval: 0.38 to 0.99; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS Overall, deferral of revascularization is equally safe with both iFR and FFR, with a low MACE rate of about 4%. Lesions were more frequently deferred when iFR was used to assess physiological significance. In deferred patients presenting with ACS, the event rate was significantly increased compared with SAP at 1 year. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
|
|
| 10. |
- Götberg, Matthias, et al.
(författare)
-
The Evolving Future of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0735-1097. ; 70:11, s. 1379-1402
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- In this review, the authors reflect upon the role of coronary physiology in the modern management of coronary artery disease. They critically appraise the scientific background of the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR), from early experimental studies to validation studies against indexes of ischemia, to clinical trials assessing outcome. At this important juncture for the field, the authors make predictions for the future of physiological stenosis assessment, outlining developments for both iFR and FFR in new clinical domains beyond the confines of stable angina. With a focus on the evolving future of iFR and FFR, the authors describe how physiological assessment with iFR may advance its application from simply justifying to guiding revascularization.
|
|
