Potential value of saline-induced Pd/Pa ratio in patients with coronary artery stenosis.
epicardial coronary artery
fractional flow reserve
physiological assessment
resting full-cycle ratio
saline-induced Pd/Pa ratio
Journal
Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine
ISSN: 2297-055X
Titre abrégé: Front Cardiovasc Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101653388
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
24
07
2022
accepted:
12
12
2022
entrez:
23
1
2023
pubmed:
24
1
2023
medline:
24
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the current gold standard for identifying myocardial ischemia in individuals with coronary artery stenosis. However, FFR is not penetrated as much worldwide due to time consumption, costs associated with adenosine, FFR-related discomfort, and complications. Resting physiological indexes may be widely accepted alternatives to FFR, while the discrepancies with FFR were found in up to 20% of lesions. The saline-induced Pd/Pa ratio (SPR) is a new simplified option for evaluating coronary stenosis. However, the clinical implication of SPR remains unclear. In the present study, we aimed to compare the accuracies of SPR and resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) and to investigate the incremental value of SPR in clinical practice. In this multicenter prospective study, 112 coronary lesions (105 patients) were evaluated by SPR, RFR, and FFR. The overall median age was 71 years, and 84.8% were men. SPR was correlated more strongly with FFR than with RFR ( Saline-induced Pd/Pa ratio predicted FFR more accurately than RFR. SPR could be an alternative method for evaluating coronary artery stenosis and further investigation including elucidation of the mechanism of SPR is needed (225 words).
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the current gold standard for identifying myocardial ischemia in individuals with coronary artery stenosis. However, FFR is not penetrated as much worldwide due to time consumption, costs associated with adenosine, FFR-related discomfort, and complications. Resting physiological indexes may be widely accepted alternatives to FFR, while the discrepancies with FFR were found in up to 20% of lesions. The saline-induced Pd/Pa ratio (SPR) is a new simplified option for evaluating coronary stenosis. However, the clinical implication of SPR remains unclear.
Objectives
UNASSIGNED
In the present study, we aimed to compare the accuracies of SPR and resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) and to investigate the incremental value of SPR in clinical practice.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
In this multicenter prospective study, 112 coronary lesions (105 patients) were evaluated by SPR, RFR, and FFR.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The overall median age was 71 years, and 84.8% were men. SPR was correlated more strongly with FFR than with RFR (
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Saline-induced Pd/Pa ratio predicted FFR more accurately than RFR. SPR could be an alternative method for evaluating coronary artery stenosis and further investigation including elucidation of the mechanism of SPR is needed (225 words).
Identifiants
pubmed: 36684556
doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.1001833
pmc: PMC9853169
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1001833Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Kiriyama, Kiyosue, Minatsuki, Kawahara, Katsushika, Kamon, Hirose, Shinohara, Miura, Saito, Kikuchi, Kodera, Hatano, Ando, Myojo, Itoh, Yamamoto, Ikenouchi, Takeda and Komuro.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
MMi received a consultant fee and lecture fee from Abbott Vascular. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Circulation. 2001 Oct 23;104(17):2003-6
pubmed: 11673336
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Oct 5;78(14):1471-1479
pubmed: 34593129
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 May 2;69(17):2212-2241
pubmed: 28291663
Atherosclerosis. 2022 Jul;352:46-52
pubmed: 35667163
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Apr;10(4):
pubmed: 28400462
Circulation. 2019 Feb 12;139(7):889-900
pubmed: 30586749
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Oct 12;78(15):1541-1549
pubmed: 34620412
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jan 15;360(3):213-24
pubmed: 19144937
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 Aug;100(2):199-206
pubmed: 35723684
N Engl J Med. 2017 May 11;376(19):1824-1834
pubmed: 28317458
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Feb 1;87(2):262-9
pubmed: 26213338
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007 May 29;49(21):2105-11
pubmed: 17531660
N Engl J Med. 2012 Sep 13;367(11):991-1001
pubmed: 22924638
J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Aug 4;9(15):e015793
pubmed: 32689859
Heart. 2020 Sep;106(18):1380-1386
pubmed: 32522821
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Sep 12;70(11):1379-1402
pubmed: 28882237
EuroIntervention. 2016 Aug 20;12(6):708-15
pubmed: 27542782
Eur Heart J. 2019 Jul 21;40(28):2350-2359
pubmed: 31327012
EuroIntervention. 2018 Oct 20;14(8):898-906
pubmed: 29688181
Circ J. 2019 Sep 25;83(10):2010-2016
pubmed: 31413232
Heart Vessels. 2021 Jun;36(6):790-798
pubmed: 33398440
J Cardiol. 2021 Mar;77(3):313-319
pubmed: 33234404
Eur Heart J. 2020 Jan 14;41(3):407-477
pubmed: 31504439
Circulation. 2001 Jun 19;103(24):2928-34
pubmed: 11413082
Eur Heart J. 2013 Jul;34(27):2055-62
pubmed: 23396491
J Interv Cardiol. 2020 Apr 06;2020:5787439
pubmed: 32327943
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Apr 25;9(8):757-767
pubmed: 27101902
EuroIntervention. 2018 Sep 20;14(7):806-814
pubmed: 29790478
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132
N Engl J Med. 2017 May 11;376(19):1813-1823
pubmed: 28317438