FFR pressure wire comparative study for drift: piezo resistive versus optical sensor.
Fractional flow reserve
drift
optical pressure sensor
piezo resistive pressure sensor
Journal
American journal of cardiovascular disease
ISSN: 2160-200X
Titre abrégé: Am J Cardiovasc Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101569582
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
30
06
2021
accepted:
07
02
2022
entrez:
16
3
2022
pubmed:
17
3
2022
medline:
17
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study aimed to assess the stability of pressure derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement and the handling performance of the OptoWire Deux with an optical pressure sensor relative to the PressureWire X with piezo resistive pressure sensors. This multicenter centre observational study included 50 patients between June 2017 and November 2018 undergoing a diagnostic coronary angiography with FFR measurement of moderate to severe lesions. The reliability of FFR measurement measured with the OptoWire Deux relative to the PressureWire X in each lesion was assessed by the presence of drift. Handling characteristics for both pressure wires were assessed by a 5-point scale and by comparing the time between equalization and crossing the distal target lesion. Hundred and sixteen measurements in 50 patients were performed. Very stable and reliable FFR measurements with the optical sensors were registered, relative to the piezo resistive pressure sensors. There is statistically significant difference in favor of the OptoWire Deux over the PressureWire X (P=0.001). However, the differences are small, when drift values were compared as continuous variables, no statistically significant difference was found for both directional (P=0.435) as for absolute drift (P=0.058). In patients undergoing FFR measurement, both optical sensor pressure wires (Optowire Deux) as piezo resistive sensor pressure wires (PressureWire X) generate stable and reliable pressure and thus FFR measurement. The optical pressure sensor is less susceptible for drift relative to the piezo resistive pressure sensor, but the difference is within an acceptable range.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to assess the stability of pressure derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement and the handling performance of the OptoWire Deux with an optical pressure sensor relative to the PressureWire X with piezo resistive pressure sensors.
METHODS
METHODS
This multicenter centre observational study included 50 patients between June 2017 and November 2018 undergoing a diagnostic coronary angiography with FFR measurement of moderate to severe lesions. The reliability of FFR measurement measured with the OptoWire Deux relative to the PressureWire X in each lesion was assessed by the presence of drift. Handling characteristics for both pressure wires were assessed by a 5-point scale and by comparing the time between equalization and crossing the distal target lesion.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Hundred and sixteen measurements in 50 patients were performed. Very stable and reliable FFR measurements with the optical sensors were registered, relative to the piezo resistive pressure sensors. There is statistically significant difference in favor of the OptoWire Deux over the PressureWire X (P=0.001). However, the differences are small, when drift values were compared as continuous variables, no statistically significant difference was found for both directional (P=0.435) as for absolute drift (P=0.058).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In patients undergoing FFR measurement, both optical sensor pressure wires (Optowire Deux) as piezo resistive sensor pressure wires (PressureWire X) generate stable and reliable pressure and thus FFR measurement. The optical pressure sensor is less susceptible for drift relative to the piezo resistive pressure sensor, but the difference is within an acceptable range.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
42-52Informations de copyright
AJCD Copyright © 2022.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Jo Dens receives grants from TopMedical (Distributor of OptoWire Deux) Asahi Intecc co. materials) for teaching courses and proctoring.
Références
JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Sep 1;4(9):857-864
pubmed: 31314045
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2022 Feb;35:57-58
pubmed: 34893445
Int J Cardiol. 2019 Feb 15;277:29-34
pubmed: 30173920
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Apr;9(4):e002988
pubmed: 27076571
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jan 15;360(3):213-24
pubmed: 19144937
N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 19;377(16):1597-1598
pubmed: 29045200
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Mar;85(4):595-601
pubmed: 24909128
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Oct 14;:
pubmed: 33090670
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Dec;7(6):751-9
pubmed: 25336468
N Engl J Med. 2012 Sep 13;367(11):991-1001
pubmed: 22924638
Circ J. 2016 Jul 25;80(8):1812-9
pubmed: 27349899
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2000 Jan;49(1):1-16
pubmed: 10627357
Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2018 Jul;33(3):270-276
pubmed: 28674929
N Engl J Med. 1996 Jun 27;334(26):1703-8
pubmed: 8637515
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Feb 5;73(4):444-453
pubmed: 30704577
Circ J. 2016 Jul 25;80(8):1704-6
pubmed: 27430249
Circulation. 2010 Dec 14;122(24):2545-50
pubmed: 21126973
Circulation. 2001 Jun 19;103(24):2928-34
pubmed: 11413082
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jul 19;379(3):250-259
pubmed: 29785878
N Engl J Med. 2017 May 11;376(19):1813-1823
pubmed: 28317438