Lots of interesting abstracts and cases were submitted for TCTAP 2024. Below are the accepted ones after a thorough review by our official reviewers. Don’t miss the opportunity to expand your knowledge and interact with authors as well as virtual participants by sharing your opinion in the comment section!
TCTAP A-036
Comparison of Angiography Derived 3D Physiologic Mapping Between Intravascular Ultrasound Versus Angiography Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease
By Erdembileg Dandar, Oyunkhand Buyankhishig, Bum-Erdene Batbayar, Gereltuya Choijiljav, Batzaya Tsognemekh, Damdinjav Enkhee, Surenjav Chimed, Batmyagmar Khuyag
Presenter
Erdembileg Dandar
Authors
Erdembileg Dandar1, Oyunkhand Buyankhishig2, Bum-Erdene Batbayar3, Gereltuya Choijiljav2, Batzaya Tsognemekh4, Damdinjav Enkhee3, Surenjav Chimed2, Batmyagmar Khuyag2
Affiliation
Mongolian National University of Medical Sciences, Mongolia1, Intermed Hospital, Mongolia2, First State Central Hospital, Mongolia3, National Cardiovascular Center In Mongolia, Mongolia4
View Study Report
TCTAP A-036
Invasive Imaging (IVUS, OCT, NIRS, VH, etc)
Comparison of Angiography Derived 3D Physiologic Mapping Between Intravascular Ultrasound Versus Angiography Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease
Erdembileg Dandar1, Oyunkhand Buyankhishig2, Bum-Erdene Batbayar3, Gereltuya Choijiljav2, Batzaya Tsognemekh4, Damdinjav Enkhee3, Surenjav Chimed2, Batmyagmar Khuyag2
Mongolian National University of Medical Sciences, Mongolia1, Intermed Hospital, Mongolia2, First State Central Hospital, Mongolia3, National Cardiovascular Center In Mongolia, Mongolia4
Background
Angiography derived3D-physiologic mapping using quantitative flow ratio (QFR) could provide betterunderstanding of the coronary flow in intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) versuscoronary angiography (CAG) guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
Methods
Patients who were suspected ofstable coronary artery disease (CAD) and underwent diagnostic CAG wereselected. IVUS or CAG guided PCI was performed for patients who had significantCAD on diagnostic CAG. Coronary flow was evaluated using CAG derivedquantitative flow ratio (QFR) (Figure 1. Angiography(left column) derived image-based 3D physiological mapping of the coronary flowusing the QFR (middle and right column) for the planning of complex PCI for theostial LAD lesion (panel A-C). LAD, left anterior descending artery; PCI,percutaneous coronary intervention; QFR, quantitative flow ratio).
Results
A total of 29 participantsincluding 16 healthy controls and 13 patients with significant CAD wereincluded in the present analysis (mean age 60±8 vs. 61±8 years old, p=0.787).For patients who diagnosed with significant CAD, IVUS guided PCI was performedfor 6 culprit lesions (LAD, LCx and RCA were culprit vessel for 4, 1 and 1lesions, respectively) of 4 patients, while CAG guided PCI was performed for 10culprit lesions (LAD, LCx and RCA were culprit vessel for 5, 2 and 3 lesions,respectively) of 9 patients. Culprit vessel pre-procedural QFR was comparablebetween IVUS and CAG guided PCI groups (0.54±0.17 vs. 0.49±0.17,p=0.578). Post-procedural QFR was significantly higher in IVUS guidedPCI group compared to CAG guided PCI group (0.96±0.03 vs. 0.88±0.07,p=0.034). Furthermore, post-procedural improvement of QFR for LAD wascomparable with healthy controls in IVUS guided PCI group (0.95±0.04vs. 0.91±0.06, p=0.180), while it was significantly lower in CAGguided PCI group (0.83±0.09 vs. 0.91±0.06, p=0.026).
Conclusion
In patients with stable CAD, IVUSguided PCI is associated with improved coronary QFR compared to CAG guided PCI andpost-procedural improvement of QFR is significantly better as healthyindividuals in IVUS guided PCI group than CAG guided PCI group.