Research progress of invasive functional assessment of coronary artery disease

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2022.06.017

Abstract

Abstract:

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is an invasive functional examination. Its diagnostic performance has been confirmed by a large number of studies. Because of its superiority to the traditional method of pure selective coronary angiography (CAG), it has now become the “gold standard” for diagnosing the severity of coronary artery disease. However, the need to use vasodilators for vascular pretreatment, poor coronary pressure guide wire passing performance, long inspection operation time and other factors make FFR limited in clinical application and could not be widely used. Therefore, derived indicators of FFR such as instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and quantitative flow ratio (QFR) have been generated. Studies have confirmed that these indicators are in good agreement with FFR. In addition, these derived indicators simplify the operation process in the measurement, avoid the use of vasodilators, and can obtain functional data close to FFR at the same time, which provide reliable support for the operator and reduce the adverse effects of patients.Therefore, they are expected to be widely used in clinical practice as an alternative to FFR. In recent years, the publication of a number of important studies has provided new evidence-based data. These studies include the update of examination methodologies, the comparison of diagnostic performance, the expansion of examination scope, and the publication of long-term follow-up data, etc. This paper reviewed the related studies in recent years.

Key words: coronary artery disease, coronary functional assessment, fractional flow reverse (FFR), instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), quantitative flow ratio (QFR)

CLC Number:

R541.4

JIANG Yue, HE Ben. Research progress of invasive functional assessment of coronary artery disease[J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Medical Science), 2022, 42(6): 813-818.

Figures/Tables 3

TrendMD

References 37

1	PIJLS N H, SON J A V, KIRKEEIDE R L, et al. 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[J]. Circulation, 1993, 87(4): 1354-1367.
2	韩雅玲. 中国经皮冠状动脉介入治疗指南(2016) [J]. 中华心血管病杂志, 2016, 44(05): 382-400.
	Han Y L. Guidelines for percutaneous coronary intervention in China (2016) [J]. Chin J Cardiol, 2016, 44(05): 382-400.
3	KOLH P, WINDECKER S, ALFONSO F, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the task force on myocardial revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)[J]. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2014, 46(4): 517-592.
4	«中国冠状动脉血流储备分数测定技术临床路径专家共识»专家组. 中国冠状动脉血流储备分数测定技术临床路径专家共识[J]. 中国介入心脏病学杂志, 2019, 27(03): 121-133.
	Expert Group on Chinese Expert Consensus on Clinical Pathway of Coronary Flow Reverse Measurement Technology. Chinese expert consensus on clinical pathway of coronary flow reverse measurement technology[J]. Chin J Interv Cardiol, 2019, 27(03): 121-133.
5	PIJLS N H J, VAN SCHAARDENBURGH P, MANOHARAN G, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally nonsignificant stenosis: 5-year follow-up of the DEFER study[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2007, 49(21): 2105-2111.
6	TONINO P A L, DE BRUYNE B, PIJLS N H J, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention[J]. N Engl J Med, 2009, 360(3): 213-224.
7	PIJLS N H J, FEARON W F, TONINO P A L, 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]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2010, 56(3): 177-184.
8	VAN NUNEN L X, ZIMMERMANN F M, TONINO P A L, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guidance of PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (FAME): 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial[J]. Lancet, 2015, 386(10006): 1853-1860.
9	VÖLZ S, DWORECK C, REDFORS B, et al. Survival of patients with angina pectoris undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with intracoronary pressure wire guidance[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2020, 75(22): 2785-2799.
10	SUD M, HAN L, KOH M, et al. Association between adherence to fractional flow reserve treatment thresholds and major adverse cardiac events in patients with coronary artery disease[J]. JAMA, 2020, 324(23): 2406-2414.
11	SHIONO Y, KURAMITSU S, MATSUO H, et al. Thrombotic risk and cardiovascular events in patients with revascularization deferral after fractional flow reserve assessment[J]. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2022, 15(4): 427-439.
12	PUYMIRAT E, CAYLA G, SIMON T, et al. Multivessel PCI guided by FFR or angiography for myocardial infarction[J]. N Engl J Med, 2021, 385(4): 297-308.
13	WALD D S, HADYANTO S, BESTWICK J P. Should fractional flow reserve follow angiographic visual inspection to guide preventive percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction? [J]. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes, 2020, 6(3): 186-192.
14	FEARON W F, ZIMMERMANN F M, DE BRUYNE B, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI as compared with coronary bypass surgery[J]. N Engl J Med, 2022, 386(2): 128-137.
15	AHN J M, ZIMMERMANN F M, ARORA S, et al. Prognostic value of comprehensive intracoronary physiology assessment early after heart transplantation[J]. Eur Heart J, 2021, 42(48): 4918-4929.
16	DE BRUYNE B, PIJLS N H J, KALESAN B, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease[J]. N Engl J Med, 2012, 367(11): 991-1001.
17	AGARWAL S K, KASULA S, HACIOGLU Y, et al. Utilizing post-intervention fractional flow reserve to optimize acute results and the relationship to long-term outcomes[J]. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2016, 9(10): 1022-1031.
18	SEN S Y, ESCANED J, MALIK I S, et al. Development and validation of a new adenosine-independent index of stenosis severity from coronary wave-intensity analysis: results of the ADVISE (adenosine vasodilator independent stenosis evaluation) study[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2012, 59(15): 1392-1402.
19	JEREMIAS A, MAEHARA A, GÉNÉREUX P, et al. Multicenter core laboratory comparison of the instantaneous wave-free ratio and resting Pd/Pa with fractional flow reserve: the RESOLVE study[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2014, 63(13): 1253-1261.
20	DAVIES J E, SEN S Y, DEHBI H M, et al. Use of the instantaneous wave-free ratio or fractional flow reserve in PCI[J]. N Engl J Med, 2017, 376(19): 1824-1834.
21	OMORI H, KAWASE Y, MIZUKAMI T, et al. Comparisons of nonhyperemic pressure ratios: predicting functional results of coronary revascularization using longitudinal vessel interrogation[J]. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2020, 13(22): 2688-2698.
22	EL HAJJ S C, TOYA T, WARISAWA T, et al. Correlation of intravascular ultrasound and instantaneous wave-free ratio in patients with intermediate left main coronary artery disease[J]. Circ Cardiovasc Interv, 2021, 14(6): e009830.
23	PATEL M R, JEREMIAS A, MAEHARA A, et al. 1-year outcomes of blinded physiological assessment of residual ischemia after successful PCI: define PCI trial[J]. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2022, 15(1): 52-61.
24	WARISAWA T, COOK C M, HOWARD J P, et al. Physiological pattern of disease assessed by pressure-wire pullback has an influence on fractional flow reserve/instantaneous wave-free ratio discordance[J]. Circ Cardiovasc Interv, 2019, 12(5): e007494.
25	FARIA D C, LEE J M, VAN DER HOEF T, et al. Age and functional relevance of coronary stenosis: a post hoc analysis of the ADVISE Ⅱ trial[J]. EuroIntervention, 2021, 17(9): 757-764.
26	DÉRIMAY F, JOHNSON N P, ZIMMERMANN F M, et al. Predictive factors of discordance between the instantaneous wave-free ratio and fractional flow reserve[J]. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 2019, 94(3): 356-363.
27	COOK C M, JEREMIAS A, PETRACO R, et al. Fractional flow reserve/instantaneous wave-free ratio discordance in angiographically intermediate coronary stenoses: an analysis using Doppler-derived coronary flow measurements[J]. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2017, 10(24): 2514-2524.
28	LEE S H, CHOI K H, LEE J M, et al. Physiologic characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with discordance between FFR and iFR[J]. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2019, 12(20): 2018-2031.
29	GÖTBERG M, CHRISTIANSEN E H, GUDMUNDSDOTTIR I J, et al. Instantaneous wave-free ratio versus fractional flow reserve to guide PCI[J]. N Engl J Med, 2017, 376(19): 1813-1823.
30	TU S X, WESTRA J, YANG J Q, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of fast computational approaches to derive fractional flow reserve from diagnostic coronary angiography: the international multicenter FAVOR pilot study[J]. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2016, 9(19): 2024-2035.
31	XU B, TU S X, QIAO S B, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of angiography-based quantitative flow ratio measurements for online assessment of coronary stenosis[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2017, 70(25): 3077-3087.
32	WESTRA J, ANDERSEN B K, CAMPO G, et al. Diagnostic performance of in-procedure angiography-derived quantitative flow reserve compared to pressure-derived fractional flow reserve: the FAVOR Ⅱ Europe-Japan study[J]. J Am Heart Assoc, 2018, 7(14): e009603.
33	XU B, TU S X, SONG L, et al. Angiographic quantitative flow ratio-guided coronary intervention (FAVOR Ⅲ China): a multicentre, randomised, sham-controlled trial[J]. Lancet, 2021, 398(10317): 2149-2159.
34	VAN DIEMEN P A, DRIESSEN R S, KOOISTRA R A, et al. Comparison between the performance of quantitative flow ratio and perfusion imaging for diagnosing myocardial ischemia[J]. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging, 2020, 13(9): 1976-1985.
35	TU S X, DING D X, CHANG Y X, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative flow ratio for assessment of coronary stenosis significance from a single angiographic view: a novel method based on bifurcation fractal law[J]. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 2021, 97(Suppl 2): 1040-1047.
36	BISCAGLIA S, TEBALDI M, BRUGALETTA S, et al. Prognostic value of QFR measured immediately after successful stent implantation: the international multicenter prospective HAWKEYE study[J]. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2019, 12(20): 2079-2088.
37	TANG J N, LAI Y, TU S X, et al. Quantitative flow ratio-guided residual functional SYNTAX score for risk assessment in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention[J]. EuroIntervention, 2021, 17(4): e287-e293.

Study	Year	Patients	Cut-off value	Primary endpoint	Conclusion
DEFER^［5］	2001	91	<0.75	adverse cardiac events	DEFER vs PEFORM （FFR guided） P=0.21
FAME^［6］	2009	509	≤0.80	MACE	FFR vs CAG P<0.001
FAME 2^［16］	2012	447	≤0.80	MACE	FFR-guided PCI + OMT vs OMT P<0.001
FAME 3^［14］	2022	1 500	≤0.80	MACCE	FFR-guided PCI vs CABG （three-vessel CAD） P=0.35 for noninferiority
AGARWAL， et al^［17］	2016	574	≤0.86	MACE	Final FFR ≤0.86 had incremental prognostic value over clinical and angiographic variables for MACE prediction

Study	Year	Patients	Cut-off value	Primary endpoint	Conclusion
DEFER^［5］	2001	91	<0.75	adverse cardiac events	DEFER vs PEFORM （FFR guided） P=0.21
FAME^［6］	2009	509	≤0.80	MACE	FFR vs CAG P<0.001
FAME 2^［16］	2012	447	≤0.80	MACE	FFR-guided PCI + OMT vs OMT P<0.001
FAME 3^［14］	2022	1 500	≤0.80	MACCE	FFR-guided PCI vs CABG （three-vessel CAD） P=0.35 for noninferiority
AGARWAL， et al^［17］	2016	574	≤0.86	MACE	Final FFR ≤0.86 had incremental prognostic value over clinical and angiographic variables for MACE prediction

Study	Year	Patients	Design	Primary endpoint	Conclusion
RESOLVE^［19］	2012	1 768	FFR contrast	‒	iFR-FFR R²=0.66
DEFINE-FLAIR^［20］	2017	2 492	iFR-FFR	MACE	iFR-FFR P<0.001 for noninferiority
iFR-SWEDEHEART^［29］	2017	2 037	iFR-FFR	death from any cause， nonfatal MI， or unplanned revascularization	iFR-FFR P=0.007 for noninferiority
DEFINE PCI^［23］	2022	500	post-PCI	death from cardiac cause， nonfatal MI， or unplanned revascularization	68% relative reduction in clinical events at 1 yr. follow-up among patients achieving post-PCI iFR ≥ 0.95， P=0.04
EL HAJJ et al^［22］	2021	125	LM leision	‒	iFR≤0.89 was associated with IVUS-MLA <6 mm² （LM leision）

Study	Year	Patients	Design	Primary endpoint	Conclusion
RESOLVE^［19］	2012	1 768	FFR contrast	‒	iFR-FFR R²=0.66
DEFINE-FLAIR^［20］	2017	2 492	iFR-FFR	MACE	iFR-FFR P<0.001 for noninferiority
iFR-SWEDEHEART^［29］	2017	2 037	iFR-FFR	death from any cause， nonfatal MI， or unplanned revascularization	iFR-FFR P=0.007 for noninferiority
DEFINE PCI^［23］	2022	500	post-PCI	death from cardiac cause， nonfatal MI， or unplanned revascularization	68% relative reduction in clinical events at 1 yr. follow-up among patients achieving post-PCI iFR ≥ 0.95， P=0.04
EL HAJJ et al^［22］	2021	125	LM leision	‒	iFR≤0.89 was associated with IVUS-MLA <6 mm² （LM leision）

Study	Year	Patients	Design	Primary endpoint	Conclusion
FAVOR Pilot^［30］	2016	1 768	FFR contrast （core laboratories）	‒	cQFR-FFR AUC=0.92
FAVOR Ⅱ China^［31］	2017	2 492	FFR contrast （catheterization laboratory）	‒	QFR-FFR AUC=0.96
FAVOR Ⅱ Europe/Japan^［32］	2018	2 037	FFR contrast （catheterization laboratory）	‒	QFR-FFR AUC=0.92
TU et al^［35］	2021	306	FFR contrast （core laboratories）	‒	μQFR-FFR r=0.90
FAVOR Ⅲ China^［33］	2021	3 847	QFR-CAG	MACE	QFR-guided vs CAG-guided P<0.001
VAN DIEMEN et al^［34］	2020	208	FFR-QFR/SPECT/PET	‒	QFR vs SPECT/PET AUC=0.94 vs 0.63/0.82
HAWKEYE^［36］	2019	602	post-PCI	VOCE	post-PCI QFR ≤0.89 was associated with a 3-fold increase in risk for VOCE
TANG et al^［37］	2019	354	functional SYNTAX score	MACE	Q-rFSS has a better prognostic ability for the risk of MACE AUC=0.74