Background: Aortic stenosis (AS) is frequently associated with coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the best tool to functionally assess CAD in AS remains undetermined. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) have never been validated in AS. Methods: FFR, iFR and stress single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) were performed in a consecutive series of 28 patients with severe AS and 41 borderline coronary lesions during the work-up for valve replacement. Results: Both FFR and iFR were correlated with an abnormal SPECT. At ROC analysis, FFR yielded an AUC = 0.91 with negative predictive value (NPV) = 95% in detecting ischemia according to SPECT. iFR showed significant worse agreement with myocardial perfusion imaging compared to FFR (59% vs 85%, p = 0.014). Specifically, a significant larger proportion of false positive measurements (negative SPECT and iFR < 0.89) was observed using iFR vs FFR: 39% vs 12%, p = 0.011. Using a pre-specified 0.82 cut-off, the iFR agreement with SPECT increased to 73%. Conclusions: FFR yielded a good correlation with SPECT and a high NPV in detecting ischemia-provoking lesions. iFR diagnostic metrics were inferior compared with FFR and improved adopting a lower ischemic threshold.

Correlation between intracoronary physiology and myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with severe aortic stenosis

Scarsini, Roberto;Cantone, Rosaria;VENTURI, GABRIELE;Variola, Andrea;BRAGGIO, PAOLO;Lunardi, Mattia;Pesarini, Gabriele;Ferdeghini, Marco;Piccoli, Anna;Ribichini, Flavio
2019-01-01

Abstract

Background: Aortic stenosis (AS) is frequently associated with coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the best tool to functionally assess CAD in AS remains undetermined. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) have never been validated in AS. Methods: FFR, iFR and stress single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) were performed in a consecutive series of 28 patients with severe AS and 41 borderline coronary lesions during the work-up for valve replacement. Results: Both FFR and iFR were correlated with an abnormal SPECT. At ROC analysis, FFR yielded an AUC = 0.91 with negative predictive value (NPV) = 95% in detecting ischemia according to SPECT. iFR showed significant worse agreement with myocardial perfusion imaging compared to FFR (59% vs 85%, p = 0.014). Specifically, a significant larger proportion of false positive measurements (negative SPECT and iFR < 0.89) was observed using iFR vs FFR: 39% vs 12%, p = 0.011. Using a pre-specified 0.82 cut-off, the iFR agreement with SPECT increased to 73%. Conclusions: FFR yielded a good correlation with SPECT and a high NPV in detecting ischemia-provoking lesions. iFR diagnostic metrics were inferior compared with FFR and improved adopting a lower ischemic threshold.
Aortic stenosis; Coronary artery disease; Fractional flow reserve; Instantaneous wave-free period; Single photon emission computed tomography; Transcatheter aortic valve implantation
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11562/994669
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 8
  • Scopus 21
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 20
social impact