Background
The ischemic consequences of coronary artery stenosis can be assessed by invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) or by noninvasive imaging. We sought to determine (1) the concordance between wall thickening assessment during clinically indicated stress echocardiography (SE) and FFR measurements and (2) the factors associated with hard events in these patients.
Methods
Two hundred twenty-three consecutive patients who underwent SE and invasive FFR measurements in close succession were analyzed retrospectively for diagnostic concordance and clinical outcomes.
Results
At the vessel level, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of SE for identifying significant disease as assessed by FFR was 68%, 75%, 43%, and 89%, respectively. The greatest discordance was seen in patients with wall thickening abnormalities (WTAs) and negative FFR. During a follow-up of 3.6 ± 2.2 years, there were 23 cardiovascular (CV) events (death and nonfatal myocardial infarction). The number of wall segments with inducible WTAs emerged as the strongest factor associated with CV events (hazard ratio, 1.18 [1.05-1.34]; P = .008). FFR was not associated with outcome. There was a significant increase in event rate in patients with WTA/negative FFR versus no WTA/negative FFR ( P = .01), but no significant difference versus WTA/positive FFR ( P = .85).
Conclusions
In a patient population with significant CV risk factors, a normal SE had a high negative predictive value for excluding abnormal FFR. WTAs were associated with outcomes regardless of FFR value, suggesting that this is a superior marker of ischemia to FFR.
Highlights
- •
A normal SE carries a high negative predictive value for excluding abnormal FFR.
- •
SE parameters, not FFR, are associated with hard CV events.
- •
Patients with a ‘false-positive’ SE had a higher event rate than those with a true-negative SE.
The ischemic consequences of coronary artery stenosis can be assessed by invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) or by noninvasive imaging. FFR determines the hyperemic pressure difference across a coronary artery stenosis, thus providing an index of the physiological significance of coronary stenosis. FFR-guided revascularization improves event-free survival, which includes subsequent revascularization, and FFR has emerged as a routine diagnostic test in clinical practice. Wall thickening abnormalities (WTAs) on stress echocardiography (SE) are well established for the detection and risk stratification of coronary artery disease (CAD). Small studies have shown good agreement for the two techniques for the identification of ischemia-causing coronary stenoses, with FFR regarded as the gold standard. However, the gold standard FFR cutoffs themselves were originally based on agreement with noninvasive imaging, thereby revealing logical inconsistency.
Coronary flow reserve (CFR) represents the ability of the coronary arteriolar bed to vasodilate and hence increase myocardial blood flow in response to increasing cardiac metabolic demands and is blunted by the presence of flow-limiting coronary stenoses, diffuse nonobstructive coronary disease, and microvascular disease. Since CFR represents the increase in hyperemic flow compared with baseline flow, in conditions where resting flow in increased, for example, with inflammation, hyperemic flow might be quite normal, while CFR would be judged to be “reduced.” Reduced CFR may occur by any combination of the above mechanisms and lead to the inability to increase myocardial blood flow adequately to meet the oxygen demand during stress, thus precipitating ischemia. The subendocardial layer bears the impact of this mismatch due to the high endocardial pressure in this part of the myocardium. Since the subendocardial layer is normally responsible for wall thickening, this is dramatically reduced, which is detected during SE. Thus wall thickening is a surrogate marker of CFR. CFR determined quantitatively has been shown to predict hard cardiac events, and SE, an indirect measure of CFR, similarly predicts hard cardiac events.
On the other hand, FFR does not look at flow reserve but measures the difference in pressure across an epicardial coronary arterial stenosis. The degree of pressure drop across the stenosis is dependent upon the magnitude of flow, which is governed by CFR. If flow is reduced, due to microvascular disease, for example, the pressure drop may be mitigated and FFR may be normal in the presence of a severe stenosis. It is therefore unsurprising that invasive FFR and CFR results are discordant in 30%-40% of coronary stenosis cases. Both FFR and CFR have been shown to predict outcome, but unlike CFR, the outcome with FFR is mainly driven by repeat revascularization.
The purpose of this study was to determine (1) the concordance between wall thickening assessment and FFR during clinically indicated SE and FFR measurements and (2) the factors associated with hard events in patients assessed in our daily routine clinical practice. We hypothesized that since wall thickening is a marker of CFR, this is a better indicator of ischemia than FFR and thus has a stronger association with CV events.
Methods
Consecutive patients undergoing clinically indicated SE and angiography with invasive FFR measurements within 6 months for the evaluation of known or suspected CAD between January 2008 and June 2016 were analyzed retrospectively. Exclusion criteria included patients with acute coronary syndrome or revascularization procedures between the two studies or deterioration in clinical symptoms. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board. Clinical characteristics and follow-up data were collected by reviewing hospital records, contacting patients or a family member, and contacting general practitioners. A national mortality database was used to identify deceased patients. The date of the last review or consultation was used to calculate the duration of follow-up up to January 1, 2017.
Stress Echocardiography
All SE studies were performed using either treadmill exercise or pharmacological (dobutamine-atropine) stress as described elsewhere. As per protocol heart rate lowering medications were withheld for 48 hours prior to testing. In summary, exercise stress was the preferred modality, and in patients unsuitable for exercise, dobutamine was infused in 3-minute dose increments, starting from 10 μg/kg/min and increasing to 20, 30, and 40 μg/kg/min if there were no resting wall motion abnormalities, otherwise a viability protocol was used commencing at 5 μg/kg/min. Parasternal long-axis, short-axis and apical four-chamber, two-chamber, and three-chamber images were obtained at rest and peak stress (iE33 Philips Medical Systems, Eindhoven, the Netherlands). In patients in whom the endocardial borders of two or more contiguous segments were not visualized, the ultrasound contrast agent Sonovue (Bracco, Milan, Italy) was given by intravenous bolus injection (0.3 mL) and flushed with saline. The final SE result was based on the interpretation of the expert cardiologist (R.S.)
The SEs were reported as normal (normal wall thickening at rest and stress) or ischemic (inducible WTA in one or more segments at peak stress or presence of biphasic response in patients with resting WTAs during low and high doses of dobutamine).
Coronary Angiography and FFR
Coronary angiography was performed where clinically indicated and in most cases where SE was positive for inducible ischemia. In patients with persistent symptoms and normal SE, angiography with FFR measurements may have been performed.
Coronary angiography was performed as per standard practice via either the femoral or radial approach. Coronary stenosis severity was based on visual assessment. The pressure wire (Pressure Wire Aeris, St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN) was calibrated and electronically equalized with the aortic pressure before being placed in the desired position distal to the lesion in the coronary artery being interrogated. Intracoronary nitroglycerin was used as per protocol before the adenosine infusion to negate the effects of any vasospasm. Intravenous adenosine was administered at a dose between 140 and 180 μg/kg/min through a large-bore intravenous line in the antecubital fossa. The resting distal coronary pressure to aortic pressure ratio (Pd/Pa) was continuously recorded throughout using the St. Jude Medical Quantien system, as calculated by dividing the mean coronary pressure measured with the pressure sensor placed distal to the stenosis by the mean aortic pressure measured through the guide catheter. At a steady state of maximal hyperemia, the nadir FFR was recorded.
FFR measurements were performed on all major epicardial arteries deemed to have intermediate stenosis (30%-80%), where the presence or absence of a severe stenosis was not evident visually. It must be noted that if SE demonstrated ischemia in a coronary territory, and quantitative angiography demonstrated < 30% stenosis, FFR would not have been clinically indicated. Conversely, on the few occasions where SE did not demonstrate ischemia in a territory, and an intermediate stenosis (30%-80%) was seen on quantitative angiography, FFR would have been performed. An FFR value of ≤0.8 was chosen as the cutoff for abnormal based on previous multicenter studies. Caffeine and all food products were withheld in patients for 12 hours before FFR measurements.
Revascularization
Revascularization was performed in vessels where FFR ≤ 0.80 (irrespective of SE results) where possible and in bystander vessels deemed to have significant stenosis and therefore viewed as needing revascularization. Where FFR was > 0.80, revascularization was not performed, irrespective of SE results.
Endpoint Definition
The principal endpoints of interest for this analysis were cardiovascular (CV) death (due to myocardial infarction [MI], cardiac arrhythmias, or heart failure) and nonfatal MI (NFMI), with patients censored at the time of event or at the last follow-up. NFMI was defined by the standard criteria of ischemic chest pain associated with an elevation of cardiac enzymes with or without electrocardiographic changes. For patients with multiple events, only the first event was considered.
Statistics
Categorical variables are expressed as percentages and continuous variables as mean ± SD. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were used to compare SE and FFR data. Cox regression analysis was performed to assess the prognostic impact of clinical variables, SE parameters, and FFR on the time to a hard event. FFR was entered into the regression analysis as both a binary and continuous variable. Patients without a hard event were censored at the time of last follow-up. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed showing the time to a hard event and were compared by the log-rank score test. For all tests, a value of P < .05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS version 23.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY).
Statistics
Categorical variables are expressed as percentages and continuous variables as mean ± SD. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were used to compare SE and FFR data. Cox regression analysis was performed to assess the prognostic impact of clinical variables, SE parameters, and FFR on the time to a hard event. FFR was entered into the regression analysis as both a binary and continuous variable. Patients without a hard event were censored at the time of last follow-up. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed showing the time to a hard event and were compared by the log-rank score test. For all tests, a value of P < .05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS version 23.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY).
Results
Two hundred twenty-three patients met the eligibility criteria. Table 1 illustrates the patient demography of the 223 patients who underwent combined SE and invasive FFR measurements. The mean age was 66.4 ± 11.5 years, and 154 (69%) patients were male, with the majority having significant CV risk factors (almost 50% had diabetes mellitus, over 80% had systemic hypertension, and almost 70% had hypercholesterolemia). The mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 55% ± 7%, with 27 (12%) patients demonstrating left ventricular dysfunction (LVEF < 50%). Resting WTAs were present in 36 (16%) patients, and inducible ischemia was present in 136 (61%) patients. In most cases (83%), SE preceded angiography. Of 223 SEs, 125 (56%) patients underwent dobutamine SE, with the remainder undergoing exercise SE. Most patients (86%) received contrast agent. Chest pain was by the far the most common indication for testing (79%).
Patient characteristic | n (%) |
---|---|
No. of patients | 223 |
Age | 66.4 |
Male | 154 (69) |
Indication | |
Chest pain | 176 (79) |
Breathlessness | 20 (9) |
Syncope | 4 (2) |
Post-MI | 23 (10) |
Smoker | 80 (36) |
Hypertension | 189 (85) |
Diabetes mellitus | 96 (43) |
Hypercholesterolemia | 158 (71) |
Family history | 65 (29) |
Peripheral vascular disease | 25 (11) |
Atrial fibrillation | 16 (7) |
Chronic kidney disease | 26 (12) |
Previous CAD | 106 (47) |
MI | 37 (17) |
Percutaneous coronary intervention | 55 (25) |
Coronary artery bypass graft | 14 (7) |
LVEF < 50% | 27 (12%) |
Resting WTAs | 36 (16) |
Inducible WTAs | 136 (61) |
Wall motion | |
Mean WMSI REST | 1.09 (0.27) |
Mean WMSI STRESS | 1.21 (0.26) |
Cardiac medications | |
Antiplatelet agents | 185 (83) |
Beta-blocker | 135 (61) |
Calcium channel blocker | 65 (29) |
Statin | 196 (88) |
Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor/ Angiotensin receptor blocker | 171 (77) |
Nitrates | 67 (30) |
SE | |
Contrast | 192 (86) |
Dobutamine | 123 (55) |