Basal Stenosis Resistance
2012; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 5; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Espanhol
10.1161/circinterventions.112.972158
ISSN1941-7632
Autores Tópico(s)Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
ResumoHomeCirculation: Cardiovascular InterventionsVol. 5, No. 4Basal Stenosis Resistance Free AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBBasal Stenosis ResistanceAnother Adenosine-Free Contender for the Lesion Assessment Crown? Morton J. Kern, MD Morton J. KernMorton J. Kern From the Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA; and the Department of Cardiology, Long Beach Veterans Administration Health Care System, Long Beach, CA. Originally published1 Aug 2012https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.112.972158Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2012;5:456–458The notion that a hyperemia-free index can accurately determine the ischemic potential of coronary stenosis is conceptually appealing but fundamentally challenging and is literally at the heart of a current and heated controversy in coronary physiology.Article see p 508In this issue of Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, van de Hoef et al1 propose another adenosine-free contender to fractional flow reserve (FFR), the basal stenosis resistance (BSR). Translesional pressure and flow velocity were measured across 299 intermediate stenoses (55%±11% diameter narrowing) in 232 patients with one- or 2-vessel coronary artery disease studied from 1997 to 2006, expanding on their prior publication.2 Using 2 sensor guidewires and intracoronary boluses (20, 40 µg) of adenosine, they computed not only BSR (translesional gradient/basal average peak flow velocity), but also coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR), FFR, and hyperemic stenosis resistance (HSR). The diagnostic performance of each index was determined by the area under the curve (AUC) from receiver operating characteristics against myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) and showed that BSR (AUC 0.77) was as good as FFR (AUC 0.77) and CFVR (AUC 0.75) but underperformed when compared with HSR (AUC 0.81). The authors thus propose that BSR is a potential replacement for FFR. This study raises several critical and confusing questions about how resting translesional pressure and flow can predict ischemia and what is a valid human ischemic standard.Hyperemic and Basal Stenosis Resistance Versus FFRBefore looking at basal markers of lesion significance, we know that the hyperemic pressure gradient/flow ratio (HSR) and the hyperemic absolute pressure ratio (FFR) both measure translesional flow responses indicative of inducible ischemia. HSR normalizes the pressure gradient for flow (velocity) and is purportedly less impacted by the variability of the hyperemic flow response.3 In the authors' 2002 report,2 the HSR also had a higher AUC (0.90) than FFR (AUC 0.82) or CFVR (AUC 0.80), postulated to be due to a decreased sensitivity of HSR to variations in hyperemic flow, which might limit the accuracy of both FFR and CFVR. Fast forward 10 years, Van de Hoef et al1 using the nearly the same data now show that BSR, although not as good as HSR, is at least as good as FFR for correlation to MPS. Why would BSR perform as well as FFR in this study?In predicting ischemia, it is already agreed that HSR is better than BSR,1,2 that is, hyperemia trumps basal data. By what mechanism could basal flow match hyperemic responses to detect ischemia? Although the authors offer no clear explanation, most of their discussion1 involves questioning where FFR might fail such as FFR's performance in patients with impaired microcirculation, diffuse coronary artery disease, or insufficient or variable adenosine responses. Little comment is made about the potential problems of BSR and flow velocity measurements or false-positive/negative MPS results in some patients.For example, because microvascular function is a critical determinant of flow, it was postulated that FFR may not fully characterize the ischemic stenosis in the case of some microcirculatory pathologies.3–5 Meuwissen et al4 showed that the degree of hyperemia (ie, a high CFVR), more than the pressure gradient (ie, loss of distal pressure), correlated better with MPS results. Does this same observation about flow hold for BSR? From Van de Hoef,1 the positive and negative MPS studies had basal stenosis pressure gradients averaging approximately 13 and 5 mmHg with average peak flow velocity averaging 16±9 and 18±8 cm/s, respectively. Higher flow at rest regardless of the distal pressure2 was associated with negative MPS, but the overlap of data makes it impossible for a single BSR value to predict the ischemic slope of the pressure/flow curve (Figure). Hyperemia in this data set still appears to be critical to make a definitive decision about stenosis significance.Download figureDownload PowerPointFigure. Illustration of hypothetical zone of basal stenosis resistance (BSR) values and the association with pressure/flow curves of positive and negative myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS). Although some BSR values may fall on the positive MPS slope, others close by will fall on the negative MPS slope. Prediction on which slope BSR resides is difficult. ΔP indicates pressure gradient (mm Hg); V, intracoronary flow velocity (cm/s). (Graphic suggested from Meuwissen et al.2)However, unlike for BSR, the resting flow velocity is not a factor for FFR because resting pressure/flow (ie, resistance) is excluded in the FFR derivation. FFR predicts ischemia with >90% sensitivity and specificity.6 Recall that for Pijls et al,6 detection of ischemia required use of a rigorous 3-stress test standard in a Bayesian approach. One or more tests had to convert from positive to negative after percutaneous coronary intervention to be considered as a true ischemic result. Although the concordance or discordance of MPS results between CFVR and FFR may relate, in part, to severe microvascular dysfunction, it is puzzling that BSR (also with an unmeasured microvascular response) can predict a positive or negative MSP.MPS and True Myocardial IschemiaThe use of MPS as the ischemia gold standard is a limitation to the validation of all lesion assessment indices. Of note, in their 2 studies1,2 using the same MPS and nearly the same patients, HSR had different AUCs (0.90 and 0.81). Any noninvasive imaging modality posing as the gold standard becomes problematic because known false-positive/negative test rates become more pronounced in specific patient subsets such as those with multivessel or diffuse coronary artery disease, severe microvascular disease, left bundle branch block, and myocardiopathies. Although abnormal MPS is the result of relative maldistribution of flow between myocardial regions with and without hemodynamically significant coronary stenoses and is presumed to represent ischemia, the agreement between repeated adenosine-MPS studies was found to be poor at only 62%.7 The use of MPS is a significant impediment to accepting the premise that basal pressure/flow performs as well as hyperemic data.Is Adenosine a Confounder to Lesion Assessment Accuracy?Some operators attribute failure of maximal hyperemia with adenosine as the cause of FFR values not matching their clinical impression or MPS results. In some patients with severely impaired microvascular function or significant ischemia, there can be a paradoxical adenosine response.5,8,9 In such circumstances, adenosine led to reduced coronary flow and hence the conclusion that hyperemia-based indices underestimated disease severity. Conceivably in this rare setting, the BSR would be equal to FFR.Adenosine vasodilation interacts with dynamic myocardial contraction, which contributes to maintenance of normal intracoronary pressure.10 In most cases, adenosine minimizes not only the distal resistance, but unmasks the true pressure gradient across a stenosis. Does adenosine-induced ischemia alter contractile function and translesional pressure producing a suboptimal FFR? At this time we await studies to address this conjecture, recall that FFR remains highly reproducible across a wide array of changing hemodynamic conditions11 and that FFR-guided outcomes are consistent across study populations with variable microvascular and myocardial contractile status. It is highly unlikely that adenosine, either in dose or action, can explain or support BSR's performance relative to FFR.Other Contenders for Adenosine-Free Lesion AssessmentHyperemia (FFR, HSR) unmasks the ischemic potential of a stenosis, similar to that of exercise in patients with no symptoms at rest (BSR) who develop exertion-related ischemia because myocardial oxygen demand exceeds coronary supply. In the quest for adenosine-free lesion assessment tools, numerous pressure and flow indices have been tested and discarded (see the Table ). Recently, the instantaneous pressure ratio during the diastolic wave-free period was proposed as an alternative to FFR.12 However, the strong instantaneous pressure ratio–FFR correlation was questioned due to excessive weighting of the Spearman coefficient toward insignificant and highly significant lesions and did not demonstrate reproducible results, especially for intermediate lesions.20 Unfortunately, in comparing BSR and FFR,1 we are not provided with the individual point correlations. All indices will show strong correlations for near normal lesions and for very severe lesions. In addition, a preliminary report showed that hyperemic instantaneous pressure ratio had a lower value than resting instantaneous pressure ratio, challenging the fundamental proposition that basal data can equal hyperemic data.20 The debate about an adenosine-free index continues.Table. Physiological Lesion Assessment ParametersPressureReferenceValidation TestUsefulpressure gradient, Pa-Pd, rest13. . .. . .Resting pressure ratio, Pd/Pa, rest14FFR. . .iFR, Pd/Pa during wave free period, rest12FFRPendingFFR, Pd/Pa, hyperemia6Stress echo, MPS, ETT+++PTC, distal diastolic pressure waveform15. . .. . .Flow velocity CFVR, APVhyperemia/APVrest16ETT, MPS+ Relative CVFR, CFVRstenotic/CFVRnormal17MPS. . . P/D flow velocity ratio18CFVR. . . DSVR18CFVR. . .Pressure and flow velocity BSR, Pa-Pd, rest/APV, rest1MPSPending HSR, Pa-Pd, hyperemia/APV, hyperemia2MPS+ IHDPV relations, simultaneous Pd, APV19. . .. . .IFR indicates instantaneous pressure ratio during diastolic wave free period; FFR, fractional flow reserve; PTC, pulse transmission coefficient; CFVR, coronary flow velocity reserve; P/D ratio, proximal APV/distal; APV, average peak flow velocity; DSVR, diastolic APV/systolic APV ratio; BSR, basal stenosis resistance, HSR, hyperemic stenosis resistance; IHDPV, instantaneous hyperemic diastolic pressure velocity relationship; MPS, myocardial perfusion scintigraphy; ETT, exercise treadmill test.Although HSR bested and BSR equaled FFR against a MPS standard, neither stenosis resistance index is widely used nor investigated due to understandable technical problems with the availability of flow velocity guidewires and the challenges in obtaining reproducible Doppler signals. Compared with >15 years of clinical experience and validation of FFR by multiple groups across multiple patient subtypes, HSR and especially BSR have a long road ahead before they can be considered as real contenders to FFR.Despite implications to the contrary,1,12 for most accurate lesion assessment, hyperemia trumps resting values except perhaps under rare circumstances. Further explanation and validation of novel resting lesion assessment indices is required before anointing any contender king.DisclosuresDr Kern is a speaker for Volcano Therapeutics Inc and St Jude Medical Inc, manufacturers of sensor guidewires.FootnotesThe opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.Correspondence to Morton J. Kern, MD, FACC, FSCAI, FAHA, Professor of Medicine, Associate Chief Cardiology, University California Irvine, Chief Cardiology, Long Beach Veterans Administration Heath Care System, 5901 E 7th Street, Building 1, Long Beach, CA 90822. E-mail [email protected]References1. van de Hoef TP, Nolte F, Damman P, Delewi R, Bax M, Chamuleau SAJ, Voskuil M, Seibes M, Tijssen JGP, Spaan JAE, Piek JJ, Meuwissen M. Diagnostic accuracy of combined intracoronary pressure and flow velocity information during baseline conditions: adenosine-free assessment of functional coronary lesion severity.Circ Intervention. 2012; 5:508–514.LinkGoogle Scholar2. Meuwissen M, Siebes M, Chamuleau SA, van Eck-Smit BL, Koch KT, de Winter RJ, Tijssen JG, Spaan JA, Piek JJ. Hyperemic stenosis resistance index for evaluation of functional coronary lesion severity.Circulation. 2002; 106:441–446.LinkGoogle Scholar3. Gould KL, Lipscomb K, Hamilton GW. Physiologic basis for assessing critical coronary stenosis. Instantaneous flow response and regional distribution during coronary hyperemia as measures of coronary flow reserve.Am J Cardiol. 1974; 33:87–94.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Meuwissen M, Chamuleau SAJ, Siebes M, Schotborgh CE, Koch KT, de Winter RJ, Bax M, de Jong A, Spaan JAE, Piek JJ. Role of variability in microvascular resistance on fractional flow reserve and coronary blood flow velocity reserve in intermediate coronary lesions.Circulation. 2001; 103:184–187.LinkGoogle Scholar5. Siebes M, Chamuleau SA, Meuwissen M, Piek JJ, Spaan JA. Influence of hemodynamic conditions on fractional flow reserve: parametric analysis of underlying model.Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2002; 283:H1462–1470.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. Pijls NHJ, de Bruyne B, Peels K, van der Voort PH, Bonnier HJ, Bartunek J, Koolen JJ. Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of coronary-artery stenoses.N Engl J Med. 1996; 334:1703–1708.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Cerqueira MD, Nguyen P, Staehr P, Underwood SR, Iskandrian AEand the ADVANCE-MPI Trial Investigators.Effects of age, gender, obesity, and diabetes on the efficacy and safety of the selective A2A agonist regadenoson versus adenosine in myocardial perfusion imaging: integrated ADVANCE-MPI trial results.J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2008; 1:307–316.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. Heusch G. Adenosine and maximum coronary vasodilation in humans: myth and misconceptions in the assessment of coronary reserve.Basic Res Cardiol. 2010; 105:1–5.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9. Sambuceti G, Marzilli M, Marraccini P, Schneider-Eicke J, Gliozheni E, Parodi O, L'Abbate A. Coronary vasoconstriction during myocardial ischemia induced by rises in metabolic demand in patients with coronary artery disease.Circulation. 1997; 95:2652–2659.LinkGoogle Scholar10. Jos AE Spaan JAE, Piek JJ, Hoffman JIE, Siebes M. Physiological basis of clinically used coronary hemodynamic indices.Circulation. 2006; 113:446–455.LinkGoogle Scholar11. de Bruyne B, Bartunek J, Sys SU, Pijls NH, Heyndrickx GR, Wijns W. Simultaneous coronary pressure and flow velocity measurements in humans. Feasibility, reproducibility, and hemodynamic dependence of coronary flow velocity reserve, hyperemic flow versus pressure slope index, and fractional flow reserve.Circulation. 1996; 94:1842–1849.LinkGoogle Scholar12. Sen S, Escaned J, Malik IS, Mikhail GW, Foale RA, Mila R, Tarkin J, Petraco R, Broyd C, Jabbour R, Sethi A, Baker CS, Bellamy M, Al-Bustami M, Hackett D, Khan M, Lefroy D, Parker KH, Hughes AD, Francis DP, Di Mario C, Mayet J, Davies JE. 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 Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 59:1392–1402.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13. Berry C, van't Veer M, Fearon W, Kala P, Witt N, Pyxaras S, Tonino P, DeBruyne B, Pijls N, Oldroyd K. Comparison of fractional flow reserve versus instant wave-free ratio for assessment of coronary artery stenosis severity in routine practice.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 59:E1384.CrossrefGoogle Scholar14. Lamm C, Albertsson P, Dohnal M, Tylen U, Emanuelsson H. Assessment of coronary artery stenosis during PTCA by measurement of the trans-stenotic pressure gradient. Comparison with quantitative coronary angiography.Eur Heart J. 1995; 16:1367–1374.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15. Mamas MA, Horner S, Welch E, Ashworth A, Millington S, Fraser D, Fath-Ordoubadi F, Neyses L, El-Omar M. Resting pd/pa measured with intracoronary pressure wire strongly predicts fractional flow reserve.J Invasive Cardiol. 2010; 22:260–265.MedlineGoogle Scholar16. Brosh D, Higano ST, Slepian MJ, Miller HI, Kern MJ, Lennon RJ, Holmes DR, Lerman A. Pulse transmission coefficient: a novel nonhyperemic parameter for assessing the physiological significance of coronary artery stenoses.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 39:1012–1019.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17. Piek JJ, Boersma E, Di Mario C, Schroeder E, Vrints C, Probst P, de Bruyne B, Hanet C, Fleck E, Haude M, Verna E, Voudris V, Geschwind H, Emanuelsson H, Muhlberger V, Peels HO, Serruys PW. Angiographical and Doppler flow-derived parameters for assessment of coronary lesion severity and its relation to the result of exercise electrocardiography. DEBATE study group. Doppler Endpoints Balloon Angioplasty Trial Europe.Eur Heart J. 2000; 21:466–474.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar18. Chamuleau SAJ, Meuwissen M, Van Eck-Smit BLF, Koch KT, De Jong A, de Winter RJ, Schotborgh CE, Bax M, Verberne HJ, Tijssen JGP, Piek JJ. Fractional flow reserve, absolute and relative coronary blood flow velocity reserve in relation to the results of technetium-99m sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomography in patients with two-vessel coronary artery disease.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 37:1316–1322.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar19. Donohue TJ, Kern MJ, Aguirre FV, Bach RG, Wolford T, Bell CA, Segal J. Assessing the hemodynamic significance of coronary artery stenoses: analysis of translesional pressure-flow velocity relations in patients.J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993; 22:449–458.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar20. Mancini GB, McGillem MJ, DeBoe SF, Gallagher KP. The diastolic hyperemic flow versus pressure relation. A new index of coronary stenosis severity and flow reserve.Circulation. 1989; 80:941–950.LinkGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Casadonte L, Verhoeff B, Piek J, VanBavel E, Spaan J and Siebes M (2017) Influence of increased heart rate and aortic pressure on resting indices of functional coronary stenosis severity, Basic Research in Cardiology, 10.1007/s00395-017-0651-0, 112:6, Online publication date: 1-Nov-2017. Jeong H, Hong S, Cho S, Kim J, Cho J, Lee S, Joo H, Park J, Yu C and Lim D (2017) Comparison of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel for Inflammation, Vascular Function, and Circulating Endothelial Progenitor Cells in Diabetic Patients With Non–ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome Requiring Coronary Stenting, JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.05.064, 10:16, (1646-1658), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2017. van de Hoef T, Petraco R, van Lavieren M, Nijjer S, Nolte F, Sen S, Echavarria-Pinto M, Henriques J, Koch K, Baan J, de Winter R, Siebes M, Spaan J, Tijssen J, Meuwissen M, Escaned J, Davies J and Piek J (2016) Basal stenosis resistance index derived from simultaneous pressure and flow velocity measurements, EuroIntervention, 10.4244/EIJV12I2A33, 12:2, (e199-e207) Kern M (2014) Reconciling Poststenotic Pressure With Hyperemic Flow, Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, 7:4, (432-434), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2014. van de Hoef T, van Lavieren M, Henriques J, Piek J and Claessen B (2014) Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Does Coronary Pressure Never Lie?, Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine, 10.1007/s11936-014-0294-5, 16:4, Online publication date: 1-Apr-2014. van de Hoef T, Meuwissen M and Piek J (2013) Lesion distribution and intrinsic variability: the challenge to beat the gold standard, EuroIntervention, 10.4244/EIJV9I1A25, 9:1, (166-168), Online publication date: 1-May-2013. August 2012Vol 5, Issue 4 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics © 2012 American Heart Association, Inc.https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.112.972158PMID: 22896574 Originally publishedAugust 1, 2012 Keywordshemodynamicscoronary flow reservepressurefractional flow reservephysiologyEditorialPDF download Advertisement SubjectsCoronary CirculationDiagnostic TestingImaging
Referência(s)