Abstract

JACC

Lots of interesting abstracts and cases were submitted for TCTAP 2021 Virtual. Below are accepted ones after thoroughly reviewed by our official reviewers. Don’t miss the opportunity to explore your knowledge and interact with authors as well as virtual participants by sharing your opinion!

TCTAP A-048 . Presentation

Presenter

Nao Yasuda

Authors

Nao Yasuda1

Affiliation

Nagoya Ekisaikai Hospital, Japan1
View Study Report
TCTAP A-048
Physiologic Lesion Assessment

Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy by Each Resting Index - Comparison with FFR

Nao Yasuda1

Nagoya Ekisaikai Hospital, Japan1

Background

Strategy based of physiological assessment by iFR (instantaneous wave-free ratio ; Philips) for coronary artery disease has got quite familiar due to its utility for clinical outcome. Recently, RFR (resting full-cycle ratio; Abbott) and dPR (diastolic pressure ratio; Zeon medical) were introduced as the other non-hyperemic indexes and showed strong correlation with iFR, respectively. However, they don’t have enough clinical evidences. The purpose of this study was to compare their indexes with FFR and estimate diagnostic accuracy of itself. 

Methods

A total of consecutive 1008 lesions (iFR, n=391;RFR, n=309; dPR, n=308) was enrolled retrospectively, who underwent both FFR and resting index due to stable angina pectoris during September 2014 to October 2020. We assessed correlation coefficient and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve by comparing each resting index (iFR, RFR and dPR) to FFR.

Results

dPR showed a stronger correlation with FFR in LAD lesion (iFR-FFR, r=0.66 vs. RFR-FFR, r= 0.74 vs.  dPR-FFR, r= 0.80). RFR showed  a weaker correlation with FFR in nonLAD (iFR-FFR, r= 0.75 vs. RFR-FFR, r= 0.57 vs. dPR-FFR, r= 0.84). In LAD, the area under the curve of iFR was 0.83,RFR was 0.85 and dPR was 0.84 to predict FFR <0.80, and each cutoff was0.89, 0.90 and 0.87, respectively. In nonLAD, the area under the curve of iFR was0.85, RFR was 0.77 and dPR was 0.86 to predict FFR <0.80, and each cutoff was 0.94, 0.92 and 0.91, respectively, which showed that the correlation between FFR and RFR deteriorated in nonLAD.


Conclusion

dPR had better correlation with FFR in every lesion. Each resting index had a different cut-off value for FFR, moreover, RFR had low accuracy with FFR in nonLAD. This might be derived from the differences of calibration methods and calculation algorithms in themselves. 

Leave Comments

TCTAP 2021 Virtual Apr 12, 2021
Excellent management! Thank you for sharing it.