Advertisement

Click here for more guidelines.

 
 




CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home
     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 2010; 55:173-185, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2009.06.062
© 2010 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kern, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Samady, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kern, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Samady, H.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article

Current Concepts of Integrated Coronary Physiology in the Catheterization Laboratory

Morton J. Kern, MD*,* and Habib Samady, MD{dagger}

* University of California, Irvine, California
{dagger} Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia


Figure 1
View larger version (44K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 1 Why Does the Angiogram Fail to Predict Physiology?

The angiogram is a 2-dimensional image of 3-dimensional structures. Most intermediate lesions are oval shaped with 2 diameters, 1 narrow and 1 wide dimension. The angiogram of an eccentric lesion cannot reliably indicate flow adequacy. Other lesions (lower right) may appear hazy but widely patent, only to be responsible for angina due to plaque rupture, as demonstrated by intravascular ultrasound cross-section (far right corner). Figure illustration by Rob Flewell.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (43K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 2 Factors Producing Resistance to Coronary Blood Flow

The angiographic 2-dimensional images cannot account for the multiple factors that produce resistance to coronary blood flow and loss of pressure across a stenosis. The eccentric and irregular stenosis (upper panel) shows arrows designating entrance effects, friction, and zones of turbulence accounting for separation energy loss. The calculation of pressure loss ({Delta}P) across a stenosis (lower right panel) incorporates length (l), areas stenosis (As), reference area (An), flow (Q), and coefficients of viscous friction and laminar separation (f1 and f2) as contributors to resistance and hence pressure loss. Figure illustration by Rob Flewell.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (66K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 3 Pressure Signals Used to Calculate FFR

Phasic and mean pressure signals used to measure fractional flow reserve (FFR), calculated as the ratio of distal coronary pressure (Pd) to aortic pressure (Pa) at maximal hyperemia, which is equal to 0.78 in this example. For reference to coronary flow, a velocity signal is shaded and shown at the bottom to identify the time of maximal hyperemia. The velocity signal is only available in combined sensor wire studies. Courtesy of Dr. Bernard DeBruyne. CVR = coronary vasodilatory reserve.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (36K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 4 Cine Angiographic Frame of Intermediate Left Anterior Descending Coronary Artery Stenosis

Pressure wire transducer located at arrow. Lower panel shows phasic and mean aortic and distal coronary pressure with significant pressure loss during hyperemia. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is 75/110 = 0.68.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 5 Data From the DEFER Study: 5-Year Follow-Up Study

(Left) Event-free survival curves for the Defer, Perform, and Reference groups. (Right) Incidence of cardiac death/myocardial infarction (MI) for the 3 groups. Reprinted, with permission, from Pijls et al. (40).

 

Figure 6
View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 6 Data From the FAME Study: Kaplan-Meier Survival Curves for 1-Year Follow-Up of the FAME Patients

(A) Event-free survival for major adverse cardiac events was significant at 1 year. No differences in event-free survival for death (B), myocardial infarction (C), or coronary artery bypass grafting/percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (D). Reprinted, with permission, from Tonino et al. (11).

 

Figure 7
View larger version (37K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 7 FFR in Multivessel PCI Decision Making

(A) Cine angiograms and FFR in a patient undergoing multivessel assessment. (Left) Right coronary artery with diffuse severe disease. (Middle) First obtuse marginal (OM1) shows FFR = 0.76. (Right) Left anterior descending artery (LAD) FFR = 0.85. Intervention on right coronary artery, OM, was performed. (B) Angiographic results of PCI guided by FFR. Abbreviations as in Figure 1.

 

Figure 8
View larger version (41K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 8 Cine Frame of Intermediate Left Main Narrowing

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) was 0.87. Medical therapy was recommended. Pa = aortic pressure; Pd = mean pressure distal to a stenosis.

 

Figure 9
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 9 FFR and Jailed Side Branch Follow-Up

Serial changes of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in the side branch vessel of 22 bifurcation lesions after stenting main vessel (Post-stent), after kissing balloon inflation of main vessel and side branch (Post-KB), and at 6 months' follow-up. Reprinted, with permission, from Koo et al. (58).

 

Figure 10
View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 10 Relationship Between 1-Year Graft Patency and % Diameter Stenosis and FFR

(A) The relationship between angiographic stenosis severity and graft failure after angiographic follow-up at 1 year. (B) The relation between functional stenosis severity established by fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements and graft failure at angiographic follow-up after 1 year. Reprinted, with permission, from Botman et al. (59).

 

Figure 11
View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 11 FFR, SPECT, and MCE in the Early Post-Myocardial Infarction Patient

(A) Concordance between fractional flow reserve (FFR) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) (dipyridamole-stress paired with rest imaging). (B) Concordance between FFR and myocardial contrast echo (MCE). (C) Sensitivity and specificity curves of FFR for detecting reversibility of combined noninvasive testing in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Reprinted, with permission, from Samady et al. (36). DS = diameter stenosis.

 




 
  CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home

Advertisement