Korean Circ J.  2014 Nov;44(6):394-399. 10.4070/kcj.2014.44.6.394.

Characteristics of Function-Anatomy Mismatch in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease

• Cho HO
• Nam CW
• Cho YK
• Yoon HJ
• Park HS
• Kim H
• Chung IS
• Doh JH
• Koo BK
• Hyun DW
• Hur SH
• Kim YN
• Kim KB

• KMID: 2223855
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4070/kcj.2014.44.6.394

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Coronary lesions with mismatched functional and anatomical significance are not uncommon. We assessed the accuracy and predictors of mismatch between fractional flow reserve (FFR) and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) analyses in patients with coronary lesions.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS
A total of 643 lesions with pre-interventional FFR and QCA measurements were consecutively enrolled and divided into four groups using FFR < or =0.80 and percent diameter stenosis (%DS) > or =50% as cutoffs for functional and anatomical significance, respectively. Accordingly, FFR >0.80 and DS > or =50%, and FFR < or =0.80 and DS <50% defined false-positive (FP) and false-negative (FN) lesions, respectively.
RESULTS
Overall, 40.4% (260/643) of the lesions were mismatched, and 51.7% (218/414) and 18.3% (42/229) were FP and FN lesions, respectively. In a multivariate analysis, independent predictors of FP were non-left anterior descending artery location {odds ratio (OR), 0.36; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.28-0.56; p<0.001}, shorter lesion length (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98; p<0.001), multi-vessel disease (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.30-0.75; p=0.001), and larger minimal lumen diameter by QCA (OR, 2.88; 95% CI,1.65-5.00; p<0.001). Independent predictors of FN were multi-vessel disease (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.24-5.27; p=0.048), aging (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99; p=0.034), smoking (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14-0.93; p=0.034), and smaller reference vessel diameter by QCA (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.10-0.87; p=0.026).
CONCLUSION
A mismatch between FFR and angiographic lesion severity is not rare in patients with coronary artery disease; therefore, an angiography-guided evaluation could under- or over-estimate lesion severity in specific lesion subsets.

Keyword

Fractional flow reserve, myocardial; Coronary angiography; Coronary artery disease

MeSH Terms

Aging
Arteries
Constriction, Pathologic
Coronary Angiography
Coronary Artery Disease*
Fractional Flow Reserve, Myocardial
Humans
Multivariate Analysis
Smoke
Smoking
Smoke

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Incidence of mismatched lesions.

Reference

1. Reiber JH, van der Zwet PM, Koning G, et al. Accuracy and precision of quantitative digital coronary arteriography: observer-, short-, and medium-term variabilities. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1993; 28:187–198.

2. Topol EJ, Nissen SE. Our preoccupation with coronary luminology. The dissociation between clinical and angiographic findings in ischemic heart disease. Circulation. 1995; 92:2333–2342.

3. Fischer JJ, Samady H, McPherson JA, et al. Comparison between visual assessment and quantitative angiography versus fractional flow reserve for native coronary narrowings of moderate severity. Am J Cardiol. 2002; 90:210–215.

4. Pijls NH, De Bruyne B, Peels K, et al. Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of coronary-artery stenoses. N Engl J Med. 1996; 334:1703–1708.

5. Melikian N, De Bondt P, Tonino P, et al. Fractional flow reserve and myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with angiographic multivessel coronary artery disease. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010; 3:307–314.

6. Pijls NH, Van Gelder B, Van der Voort P, et al. Fractional flow reserve. A useful index to evaluate the influence of an epicardial coronary stenosis on myocardial blood flow. Circulation. 1995; 92:3183–3193.

7. Nam CW, Hur SH, Koo BK, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography in left circumflex ostial intervention after left main crossover stenting. Korean Circ J. 2011; 41:304–307.

8. Kim JE, Koo BK. Fractional flow reserve: the past, present and future. Korean Circ J. 2012; 42:441–446.

9. Pijls NH, Sels JW. Functional measurement of coronary stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 59:1045–1057.

10. Shaw LJ, Iskandrian AE. Prognostic value of gated myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2004; 11:171–185.

11. Metz LD, Beattie M, Hom R, Redberg RF, Grady D, Fleischmann KE. The prognostic value of normal exercise myocardial perfusion imaging and exercise echocardiography: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 49:227–237.

12. Pijls NH, van Son JA, Kirkeeide RL, De Bruyne B, Gould KL. Experimental basis of determining maximum coronary, myocardial, and collateral blood flow by pressure measurements for assessing functional stenosis severity before and after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Circulation. 1993; 87:1354–1367.

13. De Bruyne B, Baudhuin T, Melin JA, et al. Coronary flow reserve calculated from pressure measurements in humans. Validation with positron emission tomography. Circulation. 1994; 89:1013–1022.

14. Koo BK, Yang HM, Doh JH, et al. Optimal intravascular ultrasound criteria and their accuracy for defining the functional significance of intermediate coronary stenoses of different locations. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011; 4:803–811.

15. Park SJ, Kang SJ, Ahn JM, et al. Visual-functional mismatch between coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 5:1029–1036.

16. Leone AM, De Caterina AR, Basile E, et al. Influence of the amount of myocardium subtended by a stenosis on fractional flow reserve. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2013; 6:29–36.

17. Kim HS, Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, et al. The impact of sex differences on fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) substudy. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 5:1037–1042.

18. Kang SJ, Ahn JM, Han S, et al. Sex differences in the visual-functional mismatch between coronary angiography or intravascular ultrasound versus fractional flow reserve. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013; 6:562–568.