Usefulness of combined intravascular ultrasound parameters to predict functional significance of coronary artery stenosis and determinants of mismatch.

AIMS Efficacy of combined intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) parameters in functional significance prediction and discrepancy between IVUS and fractional flow reserve (FFR) have not been well defined. This study therefore aimed to: 1) evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of combined IVUS parameters, namely minimal lumen area (MLA) and percent plaque burden (%PB), in functional significance prediction of coronary artery stenosis; and 2) define factors that affect the relation between FFR value and IVUS parameters. METHODS AND RESULTS At 11 international centres, IVUS and FFR measurements were concurrently performed in 945 major epicardial coronary artery lesions (886 patients). Functional significance was defined as FFR ≤0.8. MLA and FFR correlated weakly (r=0.289, p<0.001). Diagnostic accuracy of MLA ≤4.0 mm2, %PB >70% and their combination were 50%, 47% and 51%, respectively, with similar area under the curve (AUC) of 0.561, 0.511 and 0.516, respectively. The best cut-off values (BCV) were MLA ≤3.0 mm2 and %PB >75%, with accuracy of 60% for MLA, 50% for %PB and 56% for their combination, and AUC of 0.618, 0.511 and 0.533, respectively. MLA BCV ≤3.0 mm2 had higher predictive power than %PB BCV >75% or their combination. Independent predictors of functional significance were male gender (odds ratio 1.76 [95% confidence interval: 1.19-2.62]), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, 0.98 [0.96-0.99]), LAD lesion (2.52 [1.73-3.67]), reference vessel diameter (0.60 [0.41-0.86]), lesion length (1.04 [1.02-1.06]) and MLA (0.79 [0.69-0.92]). False negative lesion incidence was 24.4% in association with race (for Asians, 0.391 [0.219-0.698]), LAD lesion (2.677 [1.709-4.191]) and LVEF (0.977 [0.957-0.997]). False positive lesion incidence was 17.0% in association with non-LAD lesion (2.444 [1.620-3.686]). CONCLUSIONS Combined IVUS parameters did not improve the accuracy of functional significance prediction. Discrepancy between IVUS and FFR, which was not rare, should be taken into account in clinical decision making.

[1]  Jinsun Park,et al.  Relationship between intravascular ultrasound parameters and fractional flow reserve in intermediate coronary artery stenosis of left anterior descending artery: Intravascular ultrasound volumetric analysis , 2014, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[2]  Jun-Jie Zhang,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative angiographic and intravascular ultrasound parameters predicting the functional significance of single de novo lesions. , 2013, International journal of cardiology.

[3]  K. Gould,et al.  Coronary Anatomy to Predict Physiology: Fundamental Limits , 2013, Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging.

[4]  Li-jun Guo,et al.  Usefulness of lumen area parameters determined by intravascular ultrasound to predict functional significance of intermediate coronary artery stenosis , 2013, Chinese medical journal.

[5]  R. Torguson,et al.  FIRST: Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular Ultrasound Relationship Study. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[6]  Satoshi Nishimura,et al.  Impact of Lesion Length on Functional Significance in Intermediate Coronary Lesions , 2013, Clinical cardiology.

[7]  F. Ye,et al.  Optimized quantitative angiographic and intravascular ultrasound parameters predicting the functional significance of single de novo lesions in the left anterior descending artery. , 2012, Chinese medical journal.

[8]  B. Koo,et al.  Fractional Flow Reserve: The Past, Present and Future , 2012, Korean circulation journal.

[9]  A. Pichard,et al.  Intravascular ultrasound lumen area parameters for assessment of physiological ischemia by fractional flow reserve in intermediate coronary artery stenosis. , 2012, Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions.

[10]  Seung‐Jung Park,et al.  Usefulness of minimal luminal coronary area determined by intravascular ultrasound to predict functional significance in stable and unstable angina pectoris. , 2012, The American journal of cardiology.

[11]  Woo-Young Chung,et al.  Optimal intravascular ultrasound criteria and their accuracy for defining the functional significance of intermediate coronary stenoses of different locations. , 2011, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[12]  B. Koo,et al.  Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography in Left Circumflex Ostial Intervention After Left Main Crossover Stenting , 2011, Korean circulation journal.

[13]  JamieLayland,et al.  Letter by Layland et al Regarding Article, “Validation of Intravascular Ultrasound–Derived Parameters With Fractional Flow Reserve for Assessment of Coronary Stenosis Severity” , 2011 .

[14]  A. Pichard,et al.  Correlation between fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound lumen area in intermediate coronary artery stenosis. , 2011, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[15]  B. Koo,et al.  Outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention in intermediate coronary artery disease: fractional flow reserve-guided versus intravascular ultrasound-guided. , 2010, JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

[16]  Chi‐Hang Lee,et al.  New set of intravascular ultrasound-derived anatomic criteria for defining functionally significant stenoses in small coronary arteries (results from Intravascular Ultrasound Diagnostic Evaluation of Atherosclerosis in Singapore [IDEAS] study). , 2010, The American journal of cardiology.

[17]  A. Caixeta,et al.  Assessing intermediate coronary lesions: angiographic prediction of lesion severity on intravascular ultrasound. , 2007, The Journal of invasive cardiology.

[18]  J. E. Sousa,et al.  Anatomical and physiologic assessments in patients with small coronary artery disease: final results of the Physiologic and Anatomical Evaluation Prior to and After Stent Implantation in Small Coronary Vessels (PHANTOM) trial. , 2007, American heart journal.

[19]  W. Wijns,et al.  Intracoronary and Intravenous Adenosine 5′-Triphosphate, Adenosine, Papaverine, and Contrast Medium to Assess Fractional Flow Reserve in Humans , 2003, Circulation.

[20]  C. Tracy,et al.  American College of Cardiology Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Standards for Acquisition, Measurement and Reporting of Intravascular Ultrasound Studies (IVUS). A report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. , 2001, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[21]  C. Di Mario,et al.  Intravascular ultrasound criteria for the assessment of the functional significance of intermediate coronary artery stenoses and comparison with fractional flow reserve. , 2001, The American journal of cardiology.

[22]  M. Leon,et al.  Clinical, intravascular ultrasound, and quantitative angiographic determinants of the coronary flow reserve before and after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. , 1998, The American journal of cardiology.

[23]  J. A. Painter,et al.  Atherosclerosis in angiographically "normal" coronary artery reference segments: an intravascular ultrasound study with clinical correlations. , 1995, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[24]  R. Dinsmore,et al.  Interobserver Variability in Coronary Angiography , 1976, Circulation.

[25]  B. Wolf,et al.  Left ventricular end-diastolic pressure affects measurement of fractional flow reserve. , 2013, Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions.