无导丝虚拟血流储备分数技术在稳定性冠心病介入治疗中的指导价值

欧洲和中国冠心病介入治疗指南均以最高级别推荐对稳定性冠心病(SCAD)患者采用血流储备分数(FFR)进行冠状动脉病变的功能学评估并指导血运重建。然而,由于FFR存在价格昂贵、血管扩张药引起患者不适等缺点,导致其难以在临床普及。基于影像计算的多种无导丝/无腺苷的FFR技术应运而生,无导丝虚拟FFR技术具有廉价、快捷、方便的优势,有望大幅拓展冠状动脉病变功能学评估的临床应用。现就冠状动脉病变功能学评估的价值及目前面临的挑战,现有无导丝虚拟FFR技术各自的优缺点,无创冠状动脉生理学检查的发展方向进行综述,以期阐明无导丝虚拟FFR在SCAD患者血运重建中的指导价值、存在的局限性及未来研究改进的方向。     

血流储备分数与冠状动脉造影指导的治疗对急性冠状动脉综合征患者冠状动脉中度狭窄病变预后的影响

目的分析血流储备分数(FFR)与冠状动脉造影(CAG)指导的治疗对非ST段抬高急性冠状动脉综合征(NSTEACS)患者冠状动脉中度狭窄病变临床预后的影响。方法回顾性分析2014年7月1日至2015年7月30日在北京安贞医院行CAG显示为冠状动脉中度狭窄病变且行FFR检查的NSTEACS患者,共142例(FFR组),与同时期仅行CAG的NSTEACS冠状动脉中度狭窄患者以1∶2进行匹配,后者共284例(CAG组)。分析随访期间主要不良心血管事件(MACE,包括心原性死亡、靶血管血运重建、非致死性心肌梗死)发生情况。结果 FFR组行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的患者比例(36.6%比46.8%,P=0.037)、住院费用[(3.24±1.62)万元比(4.16±3.23)万元,P=0.033]、非致死性心肌梗死发生率(2.2%比4.5%,P=0.040)及靶血管血运重建率(5.9%比11.7%,P=0.046)均低于CAG组,差异均有统计学意义;而两组患者总MACE发生率及心原性死亡率比较,差异均无统计学意义(均P0.05)。结论在NSTEACS患者中,FFR结合CAG指导的治疗可减少支架置入比例和住院费用,并可改善该类患者的临床预后。     

血流储备分数指导经皮冠状动脉介入治疗术中非罪犯中度狭窄血管治疗策略的研究

目的：通过测量血流储备分数（FFR）,决定是否对不稳定型心绞痛多支血管病变患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）术中非罪犯中度狭窄血管行介入治疗,并观察临床转归。方法本研究入选不稳定型心绞痛多支血管病变患者,首先对已明确的罪犯血管行PCI治疗后,针对非罪犯中度狭窄血管按照单双号分为对照组（非支架组）和观察组（FFR指导下行PCI组）。其中,观察组FFR＜0.8的患者对中度狭窄血管行PCI治疗,术后再次行FFR检测,确保FFR≥0.95。观察终点事件为全因死亡、非致死性心肌梗死、再次血运重建发生率以及心绞痛临床表现。结果共纳入71例患者,对照组35例;观察组36例,其中FFR≥0.8的患者23例,FFR＜0.8的患者13例。两组患者无主要终点事件和再次血运重建生存率分别比较,差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）;无全因死亡与非致死性心肌梗死生存率分别比较,差异均无统计学意义。针对靶血管不良事件的统计学分析显示,两组再次血运重建（观察组5.6%,对照组31.4%）及非致死性心肌梗死（观察组5.6%,对照组28.6%）发生率分别比较,差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论不稳定型心绞痛患者中,使用压力导丝测出的FFR值来决定是否对非罪犯中度病变进行血运重建是安全的。FFR结合冠状动脉造影指导PCI治疗较单纯冠状动脉造影指导PCI的不良事件发生率显著减少,尤其在再次血运重建方面,并且心绞痛临床表现显著缓解。     

血流储备分数指导下ST段抬高型心肌梗死多支血管病变患者非梗死相关血管分期完全血运重建的临床研究

目的评估血流储备分数(FFR)在急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)多支血管病变患者非梗死相关血管(non-IRA)分期经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)完全血运重建中的临床价值。方法选取陕西中医药大学第二附属医院心血管内科2015年6月至2016年5月已成功行PCI开通梗死相关血管(IRA),拟分期PCI治疗(间隔≥7 d)non-IRA的STEMI多支血管病变患者90例,按随机数字表法分为FFR指导下完全血运重建组(FFR组)45例和冠状动脉造影指导下完全血运重建组(CAG组)45例。FFR组狭窄>90%的non-IRA病变直接行PCI治疗,对狭窄70%~90%的病变行FFR检查,仅对FFR<0.80的non-IRA行PCI治疗;CAG组对狭窄≥70%的non-IRA依据术者经验行PCI治疗,处理的靶血管参照血管直径≥2.5 mm。比较两组PCI时间、支架置入数量、造影剂用量、住院时间、住院费用和围术期并发症,随访患者术后6个月主要不良心脑血管事件发生情况。结果 FFR组支架置入数量[(1.68±0.75)枚比(2.83±0.54)枚,t=7.662,P<0.001]和造影剂用量[(164.8±35.7)ml比(195.0±41.9)ml,t=4.271,P=0.04]均明显少于CAG组;术后随访6个月,FFR组再次血运重建率显著低于CAG组(4.7%比19.5%,P=0.04),两组主要不良心脑血管事件发生率差异无统计学意义(均为P>0.05)。结论 STEMI多支血管病变患者在FFR指导下对non-IRA行分期完全血运重建可减少支架置入数量、造影剂用量及术后6个月再次血运重建率。     

血流储备分数指导下PCI效果更佳

《新英格兰医学杂志》（New England Journal of Medicine）在2012年8月28日发表了一项关于血流储备分数（FFR）指导稳定性冠状动脉患者选择经皮冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）还是药物治疗的一项注册研究（FAME2Trial）结果。这项前瞻性登记研究表明,在稳定型冠状动脉疾病和功能性显着狭窄的患者中,FFR指导的PCI加上最佳药物治疗的患者相比单独使用最佳药物治疗,减少紧急血运重建的需要。     

冠状动脉痉挛患者血流储备分数的观察

冠状动脉造影(CAG)作为诊断冠心病的"金标准",只能根据造影剂的充盈缺损判断冠状动脉狭窄的程度,无法对其进行功能性地评价[1].血流储备分数(FFR)描述了狭窄病变对血管功能的影响,是特异性反映心外膜冠脉狭窄严重程度的指标.本文统计出部分冠状动脉临界病变中冠状动脉痉挛患者和非痉挛患者FFR的不同变化,并进行了比较.     

血流储备分数在冠状动脉左主干临界病变中的应用

目的分析、比较血流储备分数(FFR)与冠状动脉造影(CAG)在指导冠状动脉左主干临界病变治疗中的应用。方法选择经CAG证实病变程度为冠状动脉左主干临界病变的冠心病患者187例,分为CAG药物治疗组、CAG介入治疗组、FFR药物治疗组、FFR介入治疗组。CAG药物治疗组未行经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)治疗,仅进行规范的冠心病二级预防药物治疗;CAG介入治疗组根据术者经验及患者临床症状、相关辅助检查决定行PCI治疗;FFR药物治疗组是对FFR0.80的病变不进行PCI治疗,而给予规范的冠心病二级预防药物治疗;FFR介入治疗组是对FFR≤0.80的病例行PCI治疗。所有患者均给予最优化的冠心病二级预防药物治疗。术后随访12个月,观察随访期间的主要不良心脏事件(包括心血管病死亡、非致死性心肌梗死、靶血管血运重建)和加拿大心血管病学会(CCS)心绞痛分级情况。结果随访结果发现,4组患者均未发生心血管病死亡和CCSⅣ级的心绞痛发作;与CAG指导下的药物治疗组和介入治疗组比较,FFR指导下的药物治疗组和介入治疗组的非致死性心肌梗死、靶血管血运重建和CCSⅠ~Ⅲ级心绞痛发作情况明显降低,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 FFR在冠状动脉左主干临界病变治疗中有一定指导意义。     

冠状动脉血流储备分数测定的技巧

冠状动脉压力测定是辅助心脏介入医师做出正确临床决定最具有前景的方法,冠状动脉血流储备分数（FFR）可在心导管室获得冠状动脉狭窄病变的功能学信息,操作简单、快捷、安全;FFR项目易于实施,只需在数个病变进行短期的培训。本文主要介绍FFR的操作技巧,并对FFR测定过程中易出现的错误加以讨论。     

冠状动脉狭窄病变功能学评估新进展

正血流储备分数(fractional flow reserve, FFR)是目前国际公认的评价冠状动脉狭窄病变的功能学指标,即有狭窄病变的冠状动脉支配区域心肌最大血流量与同一冠状动脉无狭窄病变时心肌所能获得的最大血流量的比值,可简化为冠状动脉狭窄病变远端平均压力(Pd)和病变近端平均压力(Pa)的比值,即FFR值,其判断引起心肌缺血的界限值为0.80[1-3]。有临床研究证实,FFR值0.80提示该病变需要血运重建,FFR值0.80提示该病变引起心肌缺血的可能性很     

冠状动脉血运重建:冠状动脉流量储备分数功能评价更重要

<正>冠状动脉流量储备分数(fractional flow reserve,FFR)这一病变功能学评价参数诞生已20年,其在冠心病临床治疗策略制定过程中的价值日益受到重视。与血管内超声/光学相干成像(IVUS/OCT)解剖形态学参数相比,FFR指导的功能学血运重建不仅具有较好的临床预后,更显示了优越的卫生经济统计学效益。FFR被定义为在腺苷等药物诱发心肌内微循环最大充血状态下,冠状动脉病变远端血管内与病变近端血管内平均压力的比值,正常值为     

The role of fractional flow reserve to guide stent implantation

In routine clinical practice, a sizeable proportion of patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) undergo coronary angiography without prior non-invasive functional evaluation. In this situation, the decision wheter to perform revascularization is taken solely on the basis of angiographic parameters, which are often limited in assessing the lesions that are functionally significant and ultimately responsible for patients' symptoms. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is a validated method for assessing hemodynamic significance of coronary stenoses based on the use of pressure wires and assessment of hyperemic pressure gradients across coronary lesions. FFR can guide clinical decision making in several anatomical settings: e.g. intermediate stenosis, left main stenoses, multivessel disease, bifurcation lesions. Treatment strategies guided by FFR have been shown to be equally safe and more efficacious than angiography-guided PCI. FFR is readily available in the catheterization laboratory, and can be easily measured during coronary angiography. FFR represents a unique tool for interventional cardiologists to combine anatomical and functional information, allowing the selection of optimal revascularization strategy in patients with CAD.     

Use of Coronary Physiology in the Catheterization Laboratory to Guide Treatment in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is an invasive pressure–derived index of epicardial stenosis severity used in the catheterization laboratory to assess the hemodynamic significance of coronary lesions when non-invasive functional assessment has either not been performed or is inconclusive. The rationale for the use of FFR is that coronary angiography cannot accurately predict the hemodynamic significance of lesions with diameter stenosis <90% and that there is a large body of literature supporting the use of FFR for directing coronary revascularization. Specifically, in patients with stable angina and low-risk acute coronary syndromes, revascularization with either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery should be deferred for epicardial coronary stenoses with an FFR > 0.80. Use of FFR to direct coronary revascularization should continue to increase as it has been demonstrated to improve outcomes and reduce cost.     

Outcome of patients with acute coronary syndromes and moderate coronary lesions undergoing deferral of revascularization based on fractional flow reserve assessment.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the outcome of consecutive patients with and without acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in whom revascularization was deferred on the basis of fractional flow reserve (FFR). BACKGROUND: FFR < 0.75 correlates with ischemia on noninvasive tests and deferral of treatment on the basis of FFR is associated with low event rates in selected populations. Whether these low event rates apply to patients undergoing assessment of moderate stenoses in association with an ACS is not known and is an important clinical question. METHODS: Retrospective analysis and 12 month follow-up of consecutive, moderate (50-70%) de novo coronary lesions assessed with FFR. RESULTS: Revascularization was deferred in 120 lesions (111 patients) with FFR > or = 0.75. ACS was present in 35 patients (40 lesions). The clinical, angiographic and coronary hemodynamic characteristics of patients with and without ACS were similar. Among the 35 patients with ACS, there were 3 deaths, 1 MI, and 6 target vessel revascularizations (TVRs) (15% of lesions). Among the 76 patients without ACS, there were 5 deaths, 1 MI, and 7 TVR's (9% of lesions). CONCLUSIONS: Deferral of revascularization based on FFR in patients with ACS and moderate coronary stenoses is associated with acceptable and low event rates at 1 year.     

Fractional Flow Reserve: An Updated Review

Revascularization of ischemia‐producing coronary lesions is widely used in the management of coronary artery disease. However, some coronary lesions appear significant on the conventional angiogram when they are truly non–flow limiting. For this reason, it is becoming increasingly important to determine the coronary physiology. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has emerged as a useful tool to determine the lesions that require revascularization. Measurement of FFR during invasive coronary angiography now has a class IA indication from the European Society of Cardiology for identifying hemodynamically significant coronary lesions when noninvasive evidence of myocardial ischemia is unavailable. Current data on FFR can be broadly classified into studies that compare the diagnostic accuracy of FFR measurement compared with other noninvasive modalities and studies that test treatment strategies of patients with intermediate coronary stenoses using a threshold value for FFR and that have clinical outcomes as endpoints. In this review, we will discuss the concept of FFR, current evidence supporting its usage, and future perspectives.     

Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess moderately severe coronary lesions: correlation with dobutamine stress echocardiography

BACKGROUND: New techniques to evaluate coronary artery disease, such as calculation of myocardial fractional flow reserve (FFR) with a guidewire and pressure transducer, provide a functional assessment of coronary lesions. The present study was designed to determine the correlation between FFR and dobutamine stress echocardiography in patients with moderately severe coronary stenosis in order to judge the usefulness of FFR for commonly encountered clinical problems. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 21 patients with 23 moderately severe coronary artery stenoses on angiography. The FFR was calculated and dobutamine stress echocardiography was performed to detect ischemia. Of the 16 stenoses with a negative FFR (> or = 0.75), dobutamine echocardiography also was negative. In the seven stenoses with a positive FFR (< 0.75), dobutamine echocardiography was positive in three. The efficacy of FFR in detecting ischemia that was confirmed with stress echocardiography was sensitivity 100%, specificity 80%, positive and negative predictive value 42.8%, and 100%, respectively, with a global predictive value 82.6%. A moderate degree of correlation was found between the two diagnostic tests (kappa [kappa] = 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: FFR correlates moderately well with dobutamine stress echocardiography in the assessment of moderately severe lesions in patients for whom coronary arteriography is usually indicated. However, its high negative predictive value makes FFR a useful aid in reaching clinical decisions promptly in the hemodynamics laboratory.     

Impact of fractional flow reserve measurement on the clinical management of patients with coronary artery disease evaluated with noninvasive stress tests prior to cardiac catheterization

PurposeFractional flow reserve (FFR) is often performed to assess the severity of coronary artery stenoses. However, the usefulness of measuring FFR when a noninvasive test has been obtained prior to coronary angiography has not been studied.Methods and materialsWe retrospectively reviewed 122 patients who underwent noninvasive stress test with cardiac imaging (SPECT or stress echocardiography) prior to FFR assessment of a coronary lesion. The usefulness of FFR measurement was determined. FFR was judged useful if decision to revascularize the patient reflected the result of FFR rather than the result of the stress test.ResultsA total of 136 lesions were evaluated. Of these, 66 were associated with a positive noninvasive test and 70 had no ischemia present in the territory of the evaluated vessel. When FFR was negative (≥0.75) and the test positive (57 lesions), revascularization was deferred in 55. When FFR was positive (<0.75) and the functional test negative (8 lesions), revascularization was performed in 8. FFR measurement changed the clinical decision to revascularize the patient in 55 (83%) of the 66 lesions with ischemia documented on noninvasive tests compared to 8 (11%) of the 70 lesions without ischemia (P<.0001).ConclusionFFR can be helpful in patients with coronary artery disease even when noninvasive testing is performed prior to coronarography. In this study, FFR measurement had the greatest impact in the evaluation of lesions with documented ischemia on noninvasive tests. In these patients, appropriate use of FFR based on the operator's judgment can prevent unnecessary revascularizations of intermediate lesions.     

冠脉血流储备和平板运动试验在评估冠脉狭窄病变功能的价值

目的分析冠脉血流储备功能测定和平板运动试验用于评估冠脉狭窄病变功能学影响严重性的价值。方法选择性入选2011年3月-2012年3月52例冠心病住院患者,进行运动平板试验、冠脉造影和冠脉血流储备分数(Coronary Fractional Flow Reserve简称FFR)测定。根据FFR值分为2组:A组24例FFR<0.75和B组28例FFR≥0.75,收集两组资料,随访约12个月。结果 A组24例运动平板试验均为阳性,予以植入支架治疗。在支架植入术后15分钟重复测定FFR值均高于0.75;并在介入术后第5天,A组患者重复运动平板试验结果均恢复正常。B组有25例患者运动平板试验阴性,有3例患者运动试验阳性,FFR方法可产生假阴性。所有B组患者均未进行PCI干预,而以最佳的药物治疗。28例患者临床平均随访12个月,无缺血性冠脉事件及紧急血运重建事件发生。FFR对冠脉狭窄病变功能学诊断的敏感性为88.9%,特异性为100%;阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为100%和89.3%;其准确性为94.2%。结论 FFR是一个评估冠脉狭窄病变功能严重性值得信赖的指标。     

Fractional Flow Reserve–Based Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Current Evidence and Future Directions

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) provides an objective measurement of the severity of ischemia caused by coronary stenoses in downstream myocardial regions. Data from the interventional cardiology realm have suggested benefits of a FFR-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy. Limited evidence is available on the use of FFR to guide coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The most recent data have shown that FFR might simplify CABG procedures and optimize patency of arterial grafts without any clear impact on clinical outcomes. The aim of this review was to summarize the available data on FFR-based CABG and discuss the rationale and potential consequences of a switch toward FFR-based surgical revascularization strategy.     

Functional measurement of coronary stenosis

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is considered nowadays as the gold standard for invasive assessment of physiologic stenosis significance and an indispensable tool for decision making in coronary revascularization. Use of FFR in the catheterization laboratory accurately identifies which lesions should be stented and improves the outcome in most elective clinical and angiographic conditions. Recently, FFR has been upgraded to a class IA classification in multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in the guidelines on coronary revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology. In this state-of-the-art paper, the basic concept of FFR and its application, characteristics, and use in several subsets of patients are discussed from a practical point of view.     

Instantaneous wave-free ratio(iFR) to determine hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis: A comprehensive review

Coronary angiography is considered to be the gold standard in the morphological evaluation of coronary artery stenosis. The morphological assessment of the severity of a coronary lesion is very subjective. Thus, the invasive fractional flow reserve(FFR) measurement represents the current standard for estimation of the hemodynamic significance of coronary artery stenosis. The FFR-guided revascularization strategy was initially classified as a Class-IA-recommendation in the 2014 European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Both the Deferral vs Performance of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Functionally Non-Significant Coronary Stenosis and Flow Reserve vs Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation studies showed no treatment advantage for hemodynamically insignificant stenoses. With the help of FFR(and targeted interventions), clinical results could be improved; however, the use in clinical practice is still limited due to the need of adenosine administration and a significant prolongation of the length of the procedure. Instantaneous wave-free ratio(iFR~) is a new innovative approach for the determination of the hemodynamic significance of coronary stenosis, which can be obtained at rest without the use of vasodilators. Regarding the periprocedural complications as well as prognosis, iFR~ showed non-inferiority to FFR in the SWEDEHEART and DEFINE-FLAIR trials. Furthermore, iFR~, enhanced by iFR~-pullback, provides the possibility to display the iFR~-change over the course of the vessel to create a hemodynamic map.