Relationship between stent expansion and fractional flow reserve after percutaneous coronary intervention: a post hoc analysis of the DOCTORS trial.
Journal
EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology
ISSN: 1969-6213
Titre abrégé: EuroIntervention
Pays: France
ID NLM: 101251040
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Jun 2021
11 Jun 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
12
5
2020
medline:
16
6
2021
entrez:
12
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The best criteria for adequate stent expansion assessment by intracoronary imaging remain debated and their correlation with post-PCI FFR values is unknown. This study aimed to analyse the relationship between stent expansion criteria using optical coherence tomography (OCT) analysis and the final PCI functional result. This post hoc analysis of the DOCTORS study included non-ST-elevation segment ACS patients undergoing OCT-guided PCI. The procedure functional result was assessed by the measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR). Stent expansion was assessed on OCT runs according to the DOCTORS criteria and ILUMIEN III criteria. The study included N=116 patients (age: 60.8±11.5 years; male gender: 71%). The final expansion was considered optimal in 10%, acceptable in 9% and unacceptable in 81% of the stents according to ILUMIEN III criteria, although being successful in 70% of the patients according to the DOCTORS criteria. Hypertension and larger proximal reference segment dimension were independent predictors of inadequate device ILUMIEN III expansion. FFR values were, respectively, 0.93 (0.91-0.95) versus 0.95 (0.92-0.97) in patients with optimal+acceptable versus unacceptable ILUMIEN III expansion (p=0.22), 0.94 (0.91-0.97) versus 0.95 (0.93-0.97) in patients with optimal versus non-optimal DOCTORS expansion (p=0.23), and 0.95 (0.92-0.97) versus 0.92 (0.90-0.95) in patients with minimal stent area ≥4.5 mm2 versus <4.5 mm2 (p=0.03). In this selected population, no relationship was observed between optimal stent expansion according to ILUMIEN III or DOCTORS OCT criteria and final post-PCI FFR values.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The best criteria for adequate stent expansion assessment by intracoronary imaging remain debated and their correlation with post-PCI FFR values is unknown.
AIMS
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to analyse the relationship between stent expansion criteria using optical coherence tomography (OCT) analysis and the final PCI functional result.
METHODS
METHODS
This post hoc analysis of the DOCTORS study included non-ST-elevation segment ACS patients undergoing OCT-guided PCI. The procedure functional result was assessed by the measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR). Stent expansion was assessed on OCT runs according to the DOCTORS criteria and ILUMIEN III criteria.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The study included N=116 patients (age: 60.8±11.5 years; male gender: 71%). The final expansion was considered optimal in 10%, acceptable in 9% and unacceptable in 81% of the stents according to ILUMIEN III criteria, although being successful in 70% of the patients according to the DOCTORS criteria. Hypertension and larger proximal reference segment dimension were independent predictors of inadequate device ILUMIEN III expansion. FFR values were, respectively, 0.93 (0.91-0.95) versus 0.95 (0.92-0.97) in patients with optimal+acceptable versus unacceptable ILUMIEN III expansion (p=0.22), 0.94 (0.91-0.97) versus 0.95 (0.93-0.97) in patients with optimal versus non-optimal DOCTORS expansion (p=0.23), and 0.95 (0.92-0.97) versus 0.92 (0.90-0.95) in patients with minimal stent area ≥4.5 mm2 versus <4.5 mm2 (p=0.03).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In this selected population, no relationship was observed between optimal stent expansion according to ILUMIEN III or DOCTORS OCT criteria and final post-PCI FFR values.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32392171
pii: EIJ-D-19-01103
doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-19-01103
pmc: PMC9724874
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e132-e139Références
Eur Heart J. 2015 Dec 14;36(47):3346-55
pubmed: 26242713
Eur Heart J. 2016 Feb 7;37(6):524-35a-c
pubmed: 26655874
Eur Heart J. 2017 Nov 07;38(42):3139-3147
pubmed: 29121226
Eur Heart J. 2012 Oct;33(20):2513-20
pubmed: 22653335
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 May 23;9(10):1022-31
pubmed: 27198682
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Dec;10(12):1487-1503
pubmed: 29216976
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 May 23;9(10):1032-5
pubmed: 27198683
EuroIntervention. 2018 Dec 20;14(12):e1324-e1331
pubmed: 29784630
Eur Heart J. 2018 Sep 14;39(35):3281-3300
pubmed: 29790954
Am Heart J. 2014 Aug;168(2):175-81.e1-2
pubmed: 25066556
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Nov;8(13):1704-14
pubmed: 26585621
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Nov;8(11):1297-305
pubmed: 26563859
Eur Heart J. 2016 Apr 14;37(15):1208-16
pubmed: 26757787
Circulation. 2016 Sep 27;134(13):906-17
pubmed: 27573032
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2012 Apr;5(2):193-201
pubmed: 22456026
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Aug 13;11(15):1467-1478
pubmed: 30093052
Lancet. 2016 Nov 26;388(10060):2618-2628
pubmed: 27806900
Circulation. 2019 Jan 29;139(5):694-706
pubmed: 30689413