Jamie Layland

Fractional flow reserve vs. angiography in guiding management to optimize outcomes in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation FAMOUS–NSTEMI randomized trial

Aim We assessed the management and outcomes of non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients randomly assigned to fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided management or angiography-guided standard care. Methods and results We conducted a prospective, multicentre, parallel group, 1 : 1 randomized, controlled trial in 350 NSTEMI patients with ≥1 coronary stenosis ≥30% of the lumen diameter assessed visually (threshold for FFR measurement) (NCT01764334). Enrolment took place in six UK hospitals from October 2011 to May 2013. Fractional flow reserve was disclosed to the operator in the FFR-guided group (n = 176). Fractional flow reserve was measured but not disclosed in the angiography-guided group (n = 174). Fractional flow reserve ≤0.80 was an indication for revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). The median (IQR) time from the index episode of myocardial ischaemia to angiography was 3 (2, 5) days. For the primary outcome, the proportion of patients treated initially by medical therapy was higher in the FFR-guided group than in the angiography-guided group [40 (22.7%) vs. 23 (13.2%), difference 95% (95% CI: 1.4%, 17.7%), P = 0.022]. Fractional flow reserve disclosure resulted in a change in treatment between medical therapy, PCI or CABG in 38 (21.6%) patients. At 12 months, revascularization remained lower in the FFR-guided group [79.0 vs. 86.8%, difference 7.8% (−0.2%, 15.8%), P = 0.054]. There were no statistically significant differences in health outcomes and quality of life between the groups. Conclusion In NSTEMI patients, angiography-guided management was associated with higher rates of coronary revascularization compared with FFR-guided management. A larger trial is necessary to assess health outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

A randomized trial of deferred stenting versus immediate stenting to prevent no- or slow-reflow in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (DEFER-STEMI).

Objectives The aim of this study was to assess whether deferred stenting might reduce no-reflow and salvage myocardium in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Background No-reflow is associated with adverse outcomes in STEMI. Methods This was a prospective, single-center, randomized, controlled, proof-of-concept trial in reperfused STEMI patients with ≥1 risk factors for no-reflow. Randomization was to deferred stenting with an intention-to-stent 4 to 16 h later or conventional treatment with immediate stenting. The primary outcome was the incidence of no-/slow-reflow (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction ≤2). Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed 2 days and 6 months after myocardial infarction. Myocardial salvage was the final infarct size indexed to the initial area at risk. Results Of 411 STEMI patients (March 11, 2012 to November 21, 2012), 101 patients (mean age, 60 years; 69% male) were randomized (52 to the deferred stenting group, 49 to the immediate stenting). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) time to the second procedure in the deferred stenting group was 9 h (IQR: 6 to 12 h). Fewer patients in the deferred stenting group had no-/slow-reflow (14 [29%] vs. 3 [6%]; p = 0.006), no reflow (7 [14%] vs. 1 [2%]; p = 0.052) and intraprocedural thrombotic events (16 [33%] vs. 5 [10%]; p = 0.010). Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction coronary flow grades at the end of PCI were higher in the deferred stenting group (p = 0.018). Recurrent STEMI occurred in 2 patients in the deferred stenting group before the second procedure. Myocardial salvage index at 6 months was greater in the deferred stenting group (68 [IQR: 54% to 82%] vs. 56 [IQR: 31% to 72%]; p = 0.031]. Conclusions In high-risk STEMI patients, deferred stenting in primary PCI reduced no-reflow and increased myocardial salvage. (Deferred Stent Trial in STEMI; NCT01717573)

Adenosine : Physiology, Pharmacology, and Clinical Applications

Adenosine is a ubiquitous extracellular signaling molecule with essential functions in human physiology. Due to the widespread expression of adenosine receptors, it has far-reaching effects across many different organ systems. With a prominent role in the cardiovascular system, it has been extensively studied for both its therapeutic and diagnostic abilities. One of the key areas of use is in the coronary circulation whereby adenosine produces a hyperemic response. An important target of adenosine is the coronary microcirculation whereby adenosine acts as a prominent vasodilator with many of the beneficial effects of adenosine reflected in its capacity to affect the microvessels. Adenosine also has an important role in the pre-conditioned state and also in the attenuation of ischemia-reperfusion injury. This review examines the physiology, pharmacology, and therapeutic applications of adenosine in the human cardiovascular system and provides a brief overview of important aspects of the adenosine-cardiac interaction. It also examines the role of adenosine in the coronary hyperemic response and discusses the use of adenosine for this purpose. After recent concerns about the use of adenosine, a discussion regarding safety of this drug is provided. A brief review of novel agents used to initiate coronary hyperemia is also provided.

Calculation of the index of microcirculatory resistance without coronary wedge pressure measurement in the presence of epicardial stenosis

OBJECTIVES This study sought to investigate a novel method to calculate the index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) in the presence of significant epicardial stenosis without the need for balloon dilation to measure the coronary wedge pressure (P(w)). BACKGROUND The IMR provides a quantitative measure of coronary microvasculature status. However, in the presence of significant epicardial stenosis, IMR calculation requires incorporation of the coronary fractional flow reserve (FFR(cor)), which requires balloon dilation within the coronary artery for P(w) measurement. METHODS A method to calculate IMR by estimating FFR(cor) from myocardial FFR (FFR(myo)), which does not require P(w) measurement, was developed from a derivation cohort of 50 patients from a single institution. This method to calculate IMR was then validated in a cohort of 72 patients from 2 other different institutions. Physiology measurements were obtained with a pressure-temperature sensor wire before coronary intervention in both cohorts. RESULTS From the derivation cohort, a strong linear relationship was found between FFR(cor) and FFR(myo) (FFR(cor) = 1.34 × FFR(myo) - 0.32, r(2) = 0.87, p < 0.001) by regression analysis. With this equation to estimate FFR(cor) in the validation cohort, there was no significant difference between IMR calculated from estimated FFR(cor) and measured FFR(cor) (21.2 ± 12.9 U vs. 20.4 ± 13.6 U, p = 0.161). There was good correlation (r = 0.93, p < 0.001) and agreement by Bland-Altman analysis between calculated and measured IMR. CONCLUSIONS The FFR(cor), and, by extension, microcirculatory resistance can be derived without the need for P(w). This method enables assessment of coronary microcirculatory status before or without balloon inflation, in the presence of epicardial stenosis.

Vasodilatory Capacity of the Coronary Microcirculation is Preserved in Selected Patients With Non–ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Background—The use of fractional flow reserve in patients with non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is a controversial issue. We undertook a study to assess the vasodilatory capacity of the coronary microcirculation in patients with NSTEMI when compared with a model of preserved microcirculation (stable angina [SA] cohort: culprit and nonculprit vessel) and acute microcirculatory dysfunction (ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI] cohort). We hypothesized that the vasodilatory response of the microcirculation would be preserved in NSTEMI. Methods and Results—A total of 140 patients undergoing single vessel percutaneous coronary intervention were included: 50 stable angina, 50 NSTEMI, and 40 STEMI. The index of microvascular resistance (IMR), fractional flow reserve, and coronary flow reserve were measured before stenting in the culprit vessel and in an angiographically normal nonculprit vessel in patients with SA. The resistive reserve ratio, a measure of the vasodilatory capacity of the microcirculation and calculated using the equation: baseline resistance index (TmnBase×PaBase[PdBase–Pw/PaBase–Pw])–IMR/IMR, where TmnBase referred to nonhyperemic transit time; PaBase and PdBase, the nonhyperemic aortic and distal coronary pressures, respectively; and Pw referred to the coronary wedge pressure, was also measured. Troponin was also measured ⩽24 hours after percutaneous coronary intervention. The resistive reserve ratio was significantly lower in the STEMI patients compared with the stable angina patients both culprit and nonculprit vessel (STEMI, 1.7 versus SA culprit, 2.8; P⩽0.001 and SA nonculprit, 2.9; P<0.0001) and compared with NSTEMI patients (NSTEMI, 2.46; P⩽0.001). The resistive reserve ratio was similar in stable angina and NSTEMI patients (P=0.6). IMR was significantly higher pre-PCI in STEMI compared with SA and NSTEMI (IMR STEMI, 36.51 versus IMR NSTEMI, 22.73 [P=0.01] versus IMR SA, 18.26 [P<0.0001]). However, there was no significant difference in IMR pre-PCI between NSTEMI and SA (IMR NSTEMI, 22.73; IMR SA, 18.26 [P=0.1]). Conclusions—The vasodilatory capacity of the microcirculation is preserved in selected patients with NSTEMI. The clinical use of fractional flow reserve in the culprit vessel may be preserved in selected patents with NSTEMI.

Integrated Physiologic Assessment of Ischemic Heart Disease in Real-World Practice Using Index of Microcirculatory Resistance and Fractional Flow Reserve Insights From the International Index of Microcirculatory Resistance Registry

Background—The index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) is a quantitative and specific index for coronary microcirculation. However, the distribution and determinants of IMR have not been fully investigated in patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD). Methods and Results—Consecutive patients who underwent elective measurement of both fractional flow reserve (FFR) and IMR were enrolled from 8 centers in 5 countries. Patients with acute myocardial infarction were excluded. To adjust for the influence of collateral flow, IMR values were corrected with Yong’s formula (IMRcorr). High IMR was defined as greater than the 75th percentile in each of the major coronary arteries. FFR⩽0.80 was defined as an ischemic value. 1096 patients with 1452 coronary arteries were analyzed (mean age 61.1, male 71.2%). Mean FFR was 0.84 and median IMRcorr was 16.6 U (Q1, Q3 12.4 U, 23.0 U). There was no correlation between IMRcorr and FFR values (r=0.01, P=0.62), and the categorical agreement of FFR and IMRcorr was low (kappa value=−0.04, P=0.10). There was no correlation between IMRcorr and angiographic % diameter stenosis (r=−0.03, P=0.25). Determinants of high IMR were previous myocardial infarction (odds ratio [OR] 2.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24–3.74, P=0.01), right coronary artery (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.54–2.84, P<0.01), female (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.18–2.38, P<0.01), and obesity (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.31–2.49, P<0.01). Determinants of FFR ⩽0.80 were left anterior descending coronary artery (OR 4.31, 95% CI 2.92–6.36, P<0.01), angiographic diameter stenosis ≥50% (OR 5.16, 95% CI 3.66–7.28, P<0.01), male (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.38–3.35, P<0.01), and age (per 10 years, OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.01–1.46, P=0.04). Conclusions—IMR showed no correlation with FFR and angiographic lesion severity, and the predictors of high IMR value were different from those for ischemic FFR value. Therefore, integration of IMR into FFR measurement may provide additional insights regarding the relative contribution of macro- and microvascular disease in patients with ischemic heart disease. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02186093.

When Collateral Supply is Accounted For Epicardial Stenosis Does Not Increase Microvascular Resistance

Background— The relationship between epicardial stenosis and microvascular resistance remains controversial. Exploring the relationship is critical, as many tools used in interventional cardiology imply minimal and constant resistance. However, variable collateralization may impact well on these measures. We hypothesized that when collateral supply was accounted for, microvascular resistance would be independent of epicardial stenosis. Methods and Results— Forty patients with stable angina were studied before and following percutaneous intervention. A temperature and pressure sensing guide wire was used to derive microvascular resistance using the index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR), defined as the hyperemic distal pressure multiplied by the hyperemic mean transit time. Lesion severity was assessed using fractional flow reserve. For comparison, evaluation of an angiographically normal reference vessel from the same subject also was undertaken. Both simple IMR (sIMR) and IMR corrected for collateral flow (cIMR) were calculated. When collateral supply was not accounted for, there was a significant difference in IMR values between the culprit, the post PCI, and nonculprit values (culprit sIMR 26.68±2.06, nonculprit sIMR 18.37±1.89, P=0.002; post percutaneous intervention sIMR 18.5±1.94 versus culprit sIMR 26.68±2.06, P<0.0001). However, when collateral supply was accounted for there was no difference observed (cIMR 16.96±1.78 versus nonculprit sIMR 18.37±1.89, P=0.52; post percutaneous intervention sIMR 18.5±1.94 versus cIMR 16.96±1.78, P=0.42). Conclusions— When collateral supply is accounted for, epicardial stenosis does not increase microvascular resistance in patients with stable angina.

The Role of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI)

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity in the world, despite the rate having significantly declined over the past decade. The aim of this review is to consider the emerging diagnostic and clinical utility of cardiac MRI in patients with recent AMI. Cardiac MRI has high reproducibility and accuracy, allowing detailed functional assessment and characterisation of myocardial tissue. In addition to traditional measures including infarct size (IS), transmural extent of necrosis and microvascular obstruction (MVO), other infarct characteristics can now be identified using innovative MRI techniques. These novel pathologies include myocardial oedema and myocardial haemorrhage which also have functional and prognostic implications for patients. In addition to its diagnostic utility in ordinary clinical practice, cardiac MRI has been increasingly used to provide information on surrogate outcome measures, such as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and volumes, in clinical trials. MRI is becoming more available in secondary care, however, the potential clinical utility and cost effectiveness of MRI in post-MI patients remains uncertain. Cardiac MRI is most likely to be useful in high risk patients with risk factors for heart failure (HF). This includes individuals with early signs of pump failure and risk factors for adverse remodelling, such as MVO. This review focuses on the role of cardiac MRI in the assessment of patients with AMI.

Extremely late drug-eluting stent thrombosis: 2037 days after deployment.

Thrombosis of drug eluting stents has been documented up to four years after stent implantation, often in the setting of cessation of antiplatelet therapy. We present a case of drug-eluting stent thrombosis, 2037 days after initial implantation, which we believe is the latest reported case. Late stent thrombosis remains a rare but catastrophic complication of coronary intervention. We hypothesize that the procoagulant milieu of surgery, coupled with cessation of one or both antiplatelet agents preoperatively, compounds the risk of perioperative stent thrombosis.

Fractional flow reserve-guided management in stable coronary disease and acute myocardial infarction: recent developments

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a leading global cause of morbidity and mortality, and improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of CAD can reduce the health and economic burden of this condition. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is an evidence-based diagnostic test of the physiological significance of a coronary artery stenosis. Fractional flow reserve is a pressure-derived index of the maximal achievable myocardial blood flow in the presence of an epicardial coronary stenosis as a ratio to maximum achievable flow if that artery were normal. When compared with standard angiography-guided management, FFR disclosure is impactful on the decision for revascularization and clinical outcomes. In this article, we review recent developments with FFR in patients with stable CAD and recent myocardial infarction. Specifically, we review novel developments in our understanding of CAD pathophysiology, diagnostic applications, prognostic studies, clinical trials, and clinical guidelines.