Publish in this journal
Journal Information
Vol. 73. Issue 4.
Pages 331-332 (April 2020)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Vol. 73. Issue 4.
Pages 331-332 (April 2020)
Scientific letter
DOI: 10.1016/j.rec.2019.09.008
Full text access
Prevalence of OCT-defined high-risk plaque in relation to physiological characteristics by fractional flow reserve and coronary flow reserve
Prevalencia de placas de alto riesgo definidas por OCT y su relación con la reserva fraccional de flujo y la reserva de flujo coronario
Visits
...
Masahiro Hoshinoa, Eisuke Usuia, Tomoyo Sugiyamaa, Yoshihisa Kanajia, Taishi Yonetsub, Tsunekazu Kakutaa,
Corresponding author
kaz@joy.email.ne.jp

Corresponding author:
a Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Tsuchiura Kyodo General Hospital, Ibaraki, Japan
b Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan
Article information
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Figures (1)
Tables (1)
Table 1. Patient and lesion characteristics
Full Text
To the Editor,

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has firmly proven clinical value in randomized clinical trials.1 Coronary flow impairment can alternatively be assessed by coronary flow reserve (CFR), which has also been shown to provide significant prognostic information of adverse outcomes when reduced, regardless of the presence or absence of epicardial stenosis.2,3 Patients with preserved FFR with reduced CFR have been reported to exhibit worse outcomes than those with preserved FFR and CFR. Conversely, compared with patients with concordantly ischemic FFR and CFR, those with ischemic FFR with preserved CFR showed better outcomes.4 Although we previously reported that lower FFR and microvascular dysfunction were independent predictors of the presence of optical coherence tomography (OCT)-defined thin-cap fibroatheroma (TCFA),5 no comparisons have been reported on the basis of FFR/CFR quadrants regarding OCT-derived high-risk plaque features.

We retrospectively investigated 473 de novo intermediate coronary artery lesions (30%-80% visual stenosis) from 419 patients who underwent OCT and physiological assessments during the same procedure. OCT images were acquired with the frequency domain OCT systems (ILUMIEN, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California, United States; or LUNAWAVE, Terumo, Tokyo, Japan). Physiological assessments were performed using a Pressure Wire Certus as previously described.2 The prevalence of TCFA and plaque rupture (PR) were evaluated. Established cutoff values of pressure-derived physiologic indices (FFR ≤ 0.80 and CFR ≤ 2.0) were used to divide FFR/CFR into quadrants in 2 concordantly classified [FFR+/CFR+(173 vessels) and FFR-/CFR- (103 vessels)] and 2 discordantly classified [FFR+/CFR- (171 vessels) and FFR-/CFR+(26 vessels)] groups. OCT-derived plaque characteristics were compared among FFR/CFR quadrants.

CFR was correlated to FFR (r=0.454, P<.001) and FFR-based decision making disagreed with that of CFR in 41.7% (197 vessels). TCFAs and PRs were detected in 66 vessels (14.0%) and 73 vessels (15.4%) in the total cohort. The patient and lesion characteristics of the FFR/CFR quadrants are summarized in table 1. Compared with the FFR-/CFR+group, patients in the FFR+/CFR- group were significantly younger. There were no significant differences in the prevalence of nonculprit lesions of acute coronary syndrome among the 4 quadrants. The prevalence of TCFAs and PRs were significantly different among the 4 quadrants (figure 1A,B). Compared with FFR+/CFR-, the prevalence of both TCFAs and PRs tended to be higher, although, in the post hoc analysis, this difference was not significant in the FFR-/CFR+group. The net reclassification index and integrated discrimination improvement index were both significantly improved when CFR was added to the FFR-based classification for predicting PR and TCFA (PR; net reclassification index 0.462, P <.001, integrated discrimination improvement 0.031, P <.001, TCFA; net reclassification index 0.320, P=.012, integrated discrimination improvement 0.017, P=.002).

Table 1.

Patient and lesion characteristics

  Total  FFR+/CFR+FFR+/CFR-2  FFR-/CFR+FFR-/CFR-1  P 
Vessels, No.  473  173  171  26  103   
Patients, No.  419  136  161  26  96   
Baseline characteristics
Age, y  68.0 [61.0-74.0]  69.0 [61.0-75.5]  66.0 [60.0-72.0]  72.5 [66.0-77.5]  69.0 [60.0-74.3]  .004a 
Female  82 (19.6)  29 (21.5)  25 (15.4)  8 (30.8)  20 (20.8)  .236 
Hypertension  294 (70.2)  95 (70.4)  113 (69.8)  19 (73.1)  67 (69.8)  .988 
Diabetes mellitus  162 (38.7)  63 (46.7)  58 (35.8)  12 (46.2)  29 (30.2)  .052 
Dyslipidemia  283 (67.5)  84 (62.2)  108 (66.7)  18 (69.2)  73 (76.0)  .172 
Current smoker  125 (29.8)  35 (25.9)  48 (29.6)  9 (34.6)  33 (34.4)  .528 
Ejection fraction, %  64.0 [58.0-69.0]  63.0 [55.5-68.5]  64.5 [59.0-69.0]  64.0 [57.3-68.5]  65.0 [60.0-69.3]  .288 
eGFR, mL/min/1.73 m2  69.7 [58.4-82.6]  68.0 [55.4-80.7]  70.1 [60.0-84.0]  70.0 [55.4-78.3]  71.0 [59.4-82.0]  .367 
ACS, nonculprit lesion  56 (13.4)  21 (15.6)  17 (10.5)  5 (19.2)  13 (13.5)  .478 
Angiographic findings
Diameter stenosis  57.3 [50.3-65.8]  63.4 [55.5-73.1]  56.3 [49.6-62.7]  59.4 [53.3-67.3]  52.4 [46.3-57.5]  <.001b,c,d,e 
Reference diameter  2.68 [2.27-3.06]  2.65 [2.19-3.05]  2.54 [2.25-2.90]  2.97 [2.45-3.26]  2.95 [2.53-3.22]  <.001d 
Minimum lumen diameter  1.11 [0.88-1.37]  0.95 [0.68-1.20]  1.11 [0.91-1.32]  1.12 [0.94-1.41]  1.36 [1.15-1.58]  <.001b,c,d,e 
Lesion length  11.7 [8.5-16.2]  13.1 [9.0-18.6]  10.9 [8.0-15.8]  11.1 [9.5-15.8]  10.4 [8.2-13.5]  <.001b,c 
OCT findings
Minimal lumen area, mm2  1.28 [0.91-1.9]  0.97 [0.72-1.28]  1.33 [1.03-1.72]  1.62 [1.06-1.90]  1.98 [1.40-2.45]  <.001b,c,d,f 
Fibroatheroma  328 (69.3)  125 (72.3)  112 (65.5)  19 (73.1)  72 (69.9)  .559 
Calcification  205 (43.4)  81 (46.8)  82 (48.0)  11 (42.3)  31 (30.1)  .021c,d 
TCFA  66 (14.0)  38 (22.0)  14 (8.2)  6 (23.1)  8 (7.8)  <.001b,c 
Plaque rupture  73 (15.4)  39 (22.5)  11 (6.4)  6 (23.1)  17 (16.5)  <.001b 

ACS, acute coronary syndrome; CFR, coronary flow reserve; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; FFR, fractional flow reserve; OCT, optical coherence tomography; TCFA, thin-cap fibroatheroma.

Unless otherwise indicated, values are expressed as No. (%) or median [interquartile range].

a

P <.05 FFR+/CFR- vs FFR-/CFR+.

b

P <.05 FFR+/CFR+vs FFR+/CFR-.

c

P <.05 FFR+/CFR+vs FFR-/CFR-.

d

P <.05 FFR+/CFR- vs FFR-/CFR-.

e

P <.05 FFR-/CFR+vs FFR-/CFR-.

f

P <.05 FFR+/CFR+vs FFR-/CFR+.

Figure 1.

Prevalence of PRs and TCFAs. A: the prevalence of PRs according to FFR/CFR quadrants. B: the prevalence of TCFAs according to FFR/CFR quadrants. CFR, coronary flow reserve; FFR, fractional flow reserve; PR, plaque rupture; TCFA, thin-cap fibroatheroma.

(0.12MB).

Our results indicate that physiological classifications of coronary stenosis evaluated by FFR and CFR are associated with the difference in plaque instability. Even in patients with lesions showing preserved FFR, CFR may add incremental information on plaque instability, which might be associated with worse outcomes. In the present study, we would like to address the importance of CFR in addition to FFR for evaluating plaque vulnerability. This differs from our previous report5 in which we evaluated the significance of microvascular dysfunction in addition to FFR. Further studies are needed to test the hypothesis of the possible link between physiological lesion assessment and lesion instability, and its impact on subsequent adverse cardiac events.

References
[1]
B. De Bruyne, W.F. Fearon, N.H. Pijls, et al.
Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease.
N Engl J Med., 371 (2014), pp. 1208-1217
[2]
J.M. Lee, J.H. Jung, D. Hwang, et al.
Coronary flow reserve and microcirculatory resistance in patients with intermediate coronary stenosis.
J Am Coll Cardiol., 67 (2016), pp. 1158-1169
[3]
V.R. Taqueti, B.M. Everett, V.L. Murthy, et al.
Interaction of impaired coronary flow reserve and cardiomyocyte injury on adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients without overt coronary artery disease.
Circulation., 131 (2015), pp. 528-535
[4]
T.P. van de Hoef, M.A. van Lavieren, P. Damman, et al.
Physiological basis and long-term clinical outcome of discordance between fractional flow reserve and coronary flow velocity reserve in coronary stenoses of intermediate severity.
Circ Cardiovasc Interv., 7 (2014), pp. 301-311
[5]
E. Usui, T. Yonetsu, Y. Kanaji, et al.
Optical coherence tomography-defined plaque vulnerability in relation to functional stenosis severity and microvascular dysfunction.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv., 11 (2018), pp. 2058-2068
Copyright © 2019. Sociedad Española de Cardiología
Idiomas
Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition)

Subscribe to our newsletter

Article options
Tools
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?