Mario Sádaba Sagredo, Asier Subinas Elorriaga, Sebastián Romaní Méndez, Daniel Valcárcel Paz, Rocío Angulo Llanos, Carlos Lara García, A. Quirós, Erika Muñoz García, Ángel Sánchez Recalde, Javier Robles Alonso, F. L. Ruíz-Poveda, Francisco Javier Irazusta, A. Redondo, Rosa Alba Abellás Sequeiros y, Oriol Rodríguez-Leor
{"title":"用光学传感器压力导引器测量分流量储备与非心搏过速指数之间的不一致。READI EPIC-14","authors":"Mario Sádaba Sagredo, Asier Subinas Elorriaga, Sebastián Romaní Méndez, Daniel Valcárcel Paz, Rocío Angulo Llanos, Carlos Lara García, A. Quirós, Erika Muñoz García, Ángel Sánchez Recalde, Javier Robles Alonso, F. L. Ruíz-Poveda, Francisco Javier Irazusta, A. Redondo, Rosa Alba Abellás Sequeiros y, Oriol Rodríguez-Leor","doi":"10.24875/recic.m24000448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction and objectives: Functional assessment of coronary stenosis severity with the piezo-electric sensor pressure wire has shown a discrepancy of up to 20% between hyperemic and nonhyperemic indexes. No data are available with fiber-optic pressure wires. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and factors related to the diagnostic discordance between these indexes with a fiber-optic pressure wire. Secondary aims were to assess diagnostic reproducibility in 2 consecutive measurements of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) and evaluate the drift rate. Methods: We conducted a prospective, observational multicenter study in patients undergoing functional assessment with a fiber-optic pressure wire. We took 2 consecutive measurements of the dPR (cutoff point 0.89) and FFR (cut-off point 0.80) in each lesion analyzed. The diagnostic correlation between 2 measurements with the same technique and between the 2 techniques (dPR and FFR) was assessed. Clinical and angiographic factors associated with discordance (FFR−/dPR+ and FFR+/dPR−) between the 2 techniques were analyzed. Results: We included 428 cases of stenosis (361 patients). Diagnostic reproducibility was 95.8% for the dPR, with a correlation coefficient between the 2 measurements (dPR1 and dPR2) of 0.974 ( P < .0001). For FFR, the diagnostic reproducibility was 94.9% with a correlation coefficient (FFR1 and FFR2) of 0.942 ( P < .0001). The diagnostic discordance was 18.2% (FFR+/dPR− 8.2% and FFR−/dPR+ 10%). Among the variables analyzed, the factors significantly associated with FFR−/dPR+ discordance in the multivariate analysis were hypertension and intracoronary adenosine. The only factors significantly associated with FFR+/dPR− discordance were age < 75 years and stenosis > 60%. The drift rate was 5.7%. Conclusions: Although FFR and dPR measurements with a fiber-optic pressure wire have excellent reproducibility and a low drift rate, the discordance rate remains similar to those in previous studies with a piezo-electric pressure wire. FFR−/dPR+ discordance is associated with intracoronary adenosine and hypertension. FFR+/dPR− discordance is related to age < 75 years old and stenosis > 60%.","PeriodicalId":507326,"journal":{"name":"REC: interventional cardiology","volume":"31 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discordancia entre la reserva fraccional de flujo y el �ndice no hiper�mico con gu�a de presi�n de sensor �ptico. READI EPIC-14\",\"authors\":\"Mario Sádaba Sagredo, Asier Subinas Elorriaga, Sebastián Romaní Méndez, Daniel Valcárcel Paz, Rocío Angulo Llanos, Carlos Lara García, A. Quirós, Erika Muñoz García, Ángel Sánchez Recalde, Javier Robles Alonso, F. L. Ruíz-Poveda, Francisco Javier Irazusta, A. Redondo, Rosa Alba Abellás Sequeiros y, Oriol Rodríguez-Leor\",\"doi\":\"10.24875/recic.m24000448\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction and objectives: Functional assessment of coronary stenosis severity with the piezo-electric sensor pressure wire has shown a discrepancy of up to 20% between hyperemic and nonhyperemic indexes. No data are available with fiber-optic pressure wires. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and factors related to the diagnostic discordance between these indexes with a fiber-optic pressure wire. Secondary aims were to assess diagnostic reproducibility in 2 consecutive measurements of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) and evaluate the drift rate. Methods: We conducted a prospective, observational multicenter study in patients undergoing functional assessment with a fiber-optic pressure wire. We took 2 consecutive measurements of the dPR (cutoff point 0.89) and FFR (cut-off point 0.80) in each lesion analyzed. The diagnostic correlation between 2 measurements with the same technique and between the 2 techniques (dPR and FFR) was assessed. Clinical and angiographic factors associated with discordance (FFR−/dPR+ and FFR+/dPR−) between the 2 techniques were analyzed. Results: We included 428 cases of stenosis (361 patients). Diagnostic reproducibility was 95.8% for the dPR, with a correlation coefficient between the 2 measurements (dPR1 and dPR2) of 0.974 ( P < .0001). For FFR, the diagnostic reproducibility was 94.9% with a correlation coefficient (FFR1 and FFR2) of 0.942 ( P < .0001). The diagnostic discordance was 18.2% (FFR+/dPR− 8.2% and FFR−/dPR+ 10%). Among the variables analyzed, the factors significantly associated with FFR−/dPR+ discordance in the multivariate analysis were hypertension and intracoronary adenosine. The only factors significantly associated with FFR+/dPR− discordance were age < 75 years and stenosis > 60%. The drift rate was 5.7%. Conclusions: Although FFR and dPR measurements with a fiber-optic pressure wire have excellent reproducibility and a low drift rate, the discordance rate remains similar to those in previous studies with a piezo-electric pressure wire. FFR−/dPR+ discordance is associated with intracoronary adenosine and hypertension. FFR+/dPR− discordance is related to age < 75 years old and stenosis > 60%.\",\"PeriodicalId\":507326,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"REC: interventional cardiology\",\"volume\":\"31 21\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"REC: interventional cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24875/recic.m24000448\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"REC: interventional cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24875/recic.m24000448","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Discordancia entre la reserva fraccional de flujo y el �ndice no hiper�mico con gu�a de presi�n de sensor �ptico. READI EPIC-14
Introduction and objectives: Functional assessment of coronary stenosis severity with the piezo-electric sensor pressure wire has shown a discrepancy of up to 20% between hyperemic and nonhyperemic indexes. No data are available with fiber-optic pressure wires. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and factors related to the diagnostic discordance between these indexes with a fiber-optic pressure wire. Secondary aims were to assess diagnostic reproducibility in 2 consecutive measurements of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) and evaluate the drift rate. Methods: We conducted a prospective, observational multicenter study in patients undergoing functional assessment with a fiber-optic pressure wire. We took 2 consecutive measurements of the dPR (cutoff point 0.89) and FFR (cut-off point 0.80) in each lesion analyzed. The diagnostic correlation between 2 measurements with the same technique and between the 2 techniques (dPR and FFR) was assessed. Clinical and angiographic factors associated with discordance (FFR−/dPR+ and FFR+/dPR−) between the 2 techniques were analyzed. Results: We included 428 cases of stenosis (361 patients). Diagnostic reproducibility was 95.8% for the dPR, with a correlation coefficient between the 2 measurements (dPR1 and dPR2) of 0.974 ( P < .0001). For FFR, the diagnostic reproducibility was 94.9% with a correlation coefficient (FFR1 and FFR2) of 0.942 ( P < .0001). The diagnostic discordance was 18.2% (FFR+/dPR− 8.2% and FFR−/dPR+ 10%). Among the variables analyzed, the factors significantly associated with FFR−/dPR+ discordance in the multivariate analysis were hypertension and intracoronary adenosine. The only factors significantly associated with FFR+/dPR− discordance were age < 75 years and stenosis > 60%. The drift rate was 5.7%. Conclusions: Although FFR and dPR measurements with a fiber-optic pressure wire have excellent reproducibility and a low drift rate, the discordance rate remains similar to those in previous studies with a piezo-electric pressure wire. FFR−/dPR+ discordance is associated with intracoronary adenosine and hypertension. FFR+/dPR− discordance is related to age < 75 years old and stenosis > 60%.