Focus on Acute Coronary Syndromes

Similar documents
Technical Aspects and Clinical Indications of FFR

FFR= Qs/Qn. Ohm s law R= P/Q Q=P/R

FFR in unstable angina and after MI F

FFR in Multivessel Disease

FFR and CABG Emanuele Barbato, MD, PhD, FESC Cardiovascular Center Aalst, Belgium

Fractional Flow Reserve. A physiological approach to guide complex interventions

CLINICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE

Fractional Flow Reserve and the Results of the FAME Study

Fractional Flow Reserve and the 1 Year Results of the FAME Study

Debate Should we use FFR? I will say NO.

Fractional Flow Reserve: Review of the latest data

PCIs on Intermediate Lesions NCDR Cath-PCI Registry

FFR-guided Complete vs. Culprit Only Revascularization in AMI Patients Ki Hong Choi, MD On Behalf of FRAME-AMI Investigators

FFR Incorporating & Expanding it s use in Clinical Practice

Benefit of Performing PCI Based on FFR

Controversies in Coronary Revascularization. Atlanta CCU April 15, 2016

Hybrid cardiac imaging Advantages, limitations, clinical scenarios and perspectives for the future

Management of stable CAD FFR guided therapy: the new gold standard

Fractional Flow Reserve: Basics, FAME 1, FAME 2. William F. Fearon, MD Associate Professor Stanford University Medical Center

Dave Kettles, St Dominics Hospital East London.

Σεμινάριο Ομάδων Εργασίας Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) Σε ποιούς ασθενείς; ΔΗΜΗΤΡΗΣ ΑΥΖΩΤΗΣ Επιστ. υπεύθυνος Αιμοδυναμικού Τμήματος, Βιοκλινική

FFR-Guided PCI. 4 th Imaging and Physiology Summit October 29 th, 2010 Seoul, Korea. Stanford

FRACTIONAL FLOW RESERVE Step-by-step measurement, Practical tips & Pitfalls

Coronary artery disease (CAD): Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) for Pilots Risk Assessment. B. Haaff, R. Quast

Approach to Multi Vessel disease with STEMI

Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR)

FAME STUDY: 2-year Follow-Up & CLINICAL SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

FRACTIONAL FLOW RESERVE: STANDARD OF CARE

Cindy L. Grines MD FACC FSCAI

FRACTIONAL FLOW RESERVE USE IN THE CATH LAB BECAUSE ANGIOGRAPHY ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH!!!!!!!!

Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) --Practical Set Up Pressure Measurement --

PCI reduces death/myocardial infarction in stable patients with silent ischemia

Can Angiographic Complete Revascularization Improve Outcomes for Patients with Decreased LV Function? NO!

Cost-Effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve

CT FFR: Are you ready to totally change the way you diagnose Coronary Artery Disease?

Three-vessel fractional flow reserve measurement for predicting clinical prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease

Fractional Flow Reserve and instantaneous wave -free Ratio. Λάμπρος Κ. Μόσιαλος Επεμβατικός Καρδιολόγος ΓΝ Παπαγεωργίου

Relations of Interest

New Insight about FFR and IVUS MLA

STEMI AND MULTIVESSEL CORONARY DISEASE

Coronary Physiology the current state of play

IVUS vs FFR Debate: IVUS-Guided PCI

Introducing. Integrated FFR Platform

CT or PET/CT for coronary artery disease

Microvasculature Clinical Importance. Keith G Oldroyd Golden Jubilee National Hospital Glasgow, Scotland

The Future of Coronary Physiology

Culprit PCI vs MultiVessel PCI for Acute Myocardial Infarction

Evaluation of Intermediate Coronary lesions: Can You Handle the Pressure? Jeffrey A Southard, MD May 4, 2013

Calculation of the Index of Microcirculatory Resistance without Coronary Wedge Pressure Measurement in the Presence of Epicardial Stenosis

Non merci! Revascularisation complète à la phase aigue de l infarctus? 8 e Cardiorun, La Réunion, 1 er octobre Gilles Rioufol, MD, PhD

FFR? FFR-CT? Ischaemia testing?

Physiology (FFR & IFR) is Essential in Daily Pratice. Martine Gilard Brest University - France

Can We Safely Defer PCI. Yes, already proven

Women and Coronary Artery Disease:

ROLE OF CORONARY PRESSURE & FFR IN MULTIVESSEL DISEASE

Coronary Physiology and FFR. David H. Sibley MD FACC, FSCAI, FACP

Percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease: a focus on physiology

Physiological Lesion Assessment in STEMI and Other Acute Coronary Syndromes

FFR vs icecg in Coronary Bifurcations FIESTA ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT

Value of Index of Microvascular Resistance (IMR) in Microvascular Integrity

What do the guidelines say?

Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) --Practical Set Up Pressure Measurement --

Emergency surgery in acute coronary syndrome

Clinical Seminar. Which Diabetic Patient is a Candidate for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - European Perspective

Rational use of imaging for viability evaluation

Blinded Physiological Assessment of Residual Ischemia after Successful Angiographic PCI Allen Jeremias, MD, MSc

La FFR quoi d autre: En pratique? Pierre Deharo, CHU TIMONE, Marseille

Fractional Flow Reserve for the Assessment of Nonculprit Coronary Artery Stenoses in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

Angiographic Versus Functional Severity of Coronary Artery Stenoses in the FAME Study

Drug Eluting Stents overhyped, overused and overpriced?

Control of Myocardial Blood Flow

CARDIOLOGY GRAND ROUNDS

Integrating IVUS, FFR, and Noninvasive Imaging to Optimize Outcomes. Gary S. Mintz, MD Cardiovascular Research Foundation

Controversies In STEMI Management

Imaging in Ischemic Heart Disease: Role of Cardiac MRI

3 Year Clinical Outcome and Cost-Effectiveness of FFR- Guided PCI in Stable Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: FAME 2 Trial

Diffuse Disease and Serial Stenoses. Bernard De Bruyne Cardiovascular Center Aalst Belgium

PCI vs. CABG From BARI to Syntax, Is The Game Over?

Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) estimation GRAIDIS CHRISTOS. EUROMEDICA-KYΑNOUS STAVROS Interventional Cardiologist, FSCAI

FFR-CT Not Ready for Primetime

Alex versus Xience Registry Preliminary report

Diagnostic Accuracy of Fractional Flow Reserve from Anatomic Computed TOmographic Angiography: The DeFACTO Study

Interventional Cardiology

Intervention: How and to which extent is technology helping us?

Coronary stenting: the appropriate use of FFR

How to approach non-infarct related artery disease in patients with STEMI in a limited resource setting

Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Chronic Total Occlusion: A case for coronary artery bypass grafting

FFR and ifr: Similarities, Differences, and Clinical Implication

SPECT or PET for Cardiovascular Screening in High-Risk Patients

Imaging ischemic heart disease: role of SPECT and PET. Focus on Patients with Known CAD

Subsequent management and therapies

Fractional Flow Reserve: Clinical Trials Update

Sung A Chang Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center

FFR in Left Main Disease

Fractional Flow Reserve from Coronary CT Angiography (and some neat CT images)

Prognostic Value of Gated Myocardial Perfusion SPECT

Aun-Yeong Chong MD, MRCP(UK), MBBS University of Ottawa Heart Institute

Malaysian Healthy Ageing Society

Angor Stable: de COURAGE à FAME 2. Maladie coronaire stable et coronarographie en De COURAGE à FAME 2

Transcription:

Focus on Acute Coronary Syndromes Emanuele Barbato, MD, PhD, FESC Cardiovascular Center Aalst, Belgium

Potential conflicts of interest Consulting fees and honoraria on my behalf go to the Cardiovascular Research Center Aalst Contracted Research between the Cardiovascular Research Center Aalst and the following pharmaceutical and device companies: Ablynx, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, GSK, Therabel, Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cordis J&J, Edwards, Medtronic, Orbus Neich, St Jude, Terumo Ownership Interest: Cardiovascular Research Center Aalst is cofounder of Cardio³BioSciences, a start-up company focusing on cellbased regenerative cardiovascular therapies

Acute Coronary Syndromes Culprit Vessel Acute Phase STEMI UA / NSTEMI Non-culprit vessel Chronic or Stabilized Phase

Acute Coronary Syndromes Culprit Vessel Acute Phase STEMI UA / NSTEMI Non-culprit vessel Chronic or Stabilized Phase

Post-PCI

Acute Coronary Syndromes Culprit Vessel Acute Phase STEMI UA / NSTEMI Non-culprit vessel Chronic or Stabilized Phase

Acute Coronary Syndromes Culprit Vessel Acute Phase STEMI UA / NSTEMI Non-culprit vessel Chronic or Stabilized Phase

FFR is mandatory for the treatment of MVD FFF = ratio of maximal myocardial flow in the stenotic territory to normal maximal myocardial flow Maximal hyperemia or minimal microvascular resistance is crucial for FFR Failure to achieve minimal microvascular resistance results into an underestimation of the functional severity of the coronary stenosis

Acute phase Residual epicardial obstruction: - stenosis not completely releaved - thrombi in the epicardial compartment Microvascular impairment: - cell death - arteriolar dysfunction - no reflow, intercellular edema - micro-embolization - stunning

Vasodilator Response FFR is mandatory for the treatment of MVD Impaired Coronary Vasodilator Response in STEMI (post-strk, n=13, PET) p<0.01 p=0.05 1 week 6 months Infarcted Region Controls Uren NG et al NEJM 1994

Sub-Acute and Chronic phase residual (or recurrent) epicardial stenosis permanent microvascular damage decreased perfusion territory ( physiologic ) : only viable myocardium needs to be perfused and myocardial blood flow should be studied in relation to the perfusion area.

Chronic Microvascular Damage and FFR FFR=0.50 DS=75% Normal Myocardium Myocardial Infarction FFR=0.84 DS=75% Scar Normal Myocardium

FFR in the Culprit Lesion Is FFR < 0.80 a valid cut-off value to exclude / confirm the presence of reversible myocardial ischemia in patients with prior (chronic) MI?

FFR in Chronic MI (Culprit Vessel) Comparison of FFR in 57 patients with an MI 6 days old to SPECT imaging before and after PCI De Bruyne et al. Circulation 2001

FFR in Chronic MI (Culprit Vessel) Best FFR cutoff value < 0.80 in the setting of old MI De Bruyne et al. Circulation 2001

FFR in Chronic MI (Culprit Vessel) Relationship between FFR and mass of myocardium at risk De Bruyne et al. Circulation 2001

FFR after Recent MI (Culprit Vessel) FFR and SPECT performed in 48 patients 3.7 days after MI ( 3 days after STEMI: 73%; 2 days after NSTEMI) 23 patients also had myocardial contrast echo Follow-up SPECT was performed 11 weeks later to identify true positive and negatives Samady et al., J Am Coll Cardiol 2006

FFR after Recent MI (Culprit Vessel) Concordance 91%; Best FFR Cutoff is 0.78 Samady et al., J Am Coll Cardiol 2006

Acute Coronary Syndromes Culprit Vessel Acute Phase STEMI UA / NSTEMI Non-culprit vessel Chronic or Stabilized Phase

Open question How long do you have to wait for microvascular stunning to resolve and before you can get a reproducible FFR? Time to recovery of the microvasculature is variable (from days to weeks?), depending on the size of the infarct.

Acute Coronary Syndromes Culprit Vessel Acute Phase STEMI UA / NSTEMI Non-culprit vessel Chronic or Stabilized Phase

Vasodilator Response FFR is mandatory for the treatment of MVD Impaired Coronary Vasodilator Response in STEMI (post-strk, n=13, PET) p<0.01 p<0.01 p=0.05 1 week 6 months Infarcted Region 1 week 6 months Remote Region Controls Uren NG et al NEJM 1994

FFR in Non-Culprit Stenoses During the Acute Phase of a Myocardial Infarction 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 104 patients with acute MI 112 non-culprit stenoses FFR - acute phase and - 1 month later 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 In 2/112 stenoses, the FFR value was >0.80 at the acute phase but <0.75 at follow-up 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 ACUTE FOLLOW-UP p=ns Ntalianis A et al JACC interv 2010

IMR measured in 14 patients acutely and at follow-up Index of Microcirculatory resistance IU 80 n=14 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 p=ns 0 ACUTE FOLLOW UP Ntalianis A et al JACC interv 2010

FFR = 0.87

Acute Coronary Syndromes Culprit Vessel Acute Phase STEMI UA / NSTEMI Non-culprit vessel Chronic or Stabilized Phase

Acute Coronary Syndromes Culprit Vessel Acute Phase STEMI UA / NSTEMI Non-culprit vessel Chronic or Stabilized Phase

70 patients with UA/NSTEMI, SVD and intermediate lesion randomized to FFR or stress perfusion scan Leesar et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003

Cost-Effectiveness and Hospital Stay Leesar et al. JACC 2003

Clinical Events at 1 Year Follow-Up Leesar et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003

FFR is mandatory for the treatment of MVD 201 patients with 50% stenosis (2/3 ACS) in which intervention was deferred based on FFR Potvin et al. Am J Cardiol 2006

FFR NSTE ACS (Culprit + Non Culprit Vessel) Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation Tonino et al. New Engl J Med 2009

Baseline Characteristics Angio- Guided n = 496 FFR- Guided n = 509 P Value Age, mean ±SD 64±10 65±10 0.47 Male, % 73 75 0.30 Diabetes, % 25 24 0.65 Hypertension, % 66 61 0.10 Current smoker, % 32 27 0.12 Hyperlipidemia, % 73 72 0.62 Previous MI, % 36 37 0.84 NSTE ACS, % 36 29 0.11 Previous PCI, % 26 29 0.34 LVEF, mean ±SD 57±12 57±11 0.92 LVEF < 50%, % 27 29 0.47

Comparison of MACE in FAME patients with and without ACS Tonino et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011 (submitted)

Conclusions In the acute phase of STEMI, FFR of the culprit vessel is useless/unreliable, but can be accurately measured in the non-culprit vessel In the subacute or chronic phase of STEMI, once microvascular stunning has decreased, FFR is reliable to evaluate the residual ischemic potential of an open Infarct-related artery (IRA) FFR appears accurate and safe in the setting of UA/NSTE-ACS for both culprit and non-culprit vessels