Noninvasive Assessment of Renal Fractional Flow Reserve: Are We There Yet?
Qi Xiaolong,Fan Guoxin,Li Zhiwei,Ma Wanrong,Yang Changqing
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.20131746
IF: 6.133
2014-01-01
Chinese Medical Journal
Abstract:The highly diagnostic performance of renal transstenotic pressure gradients (TSPG) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) has been well validated for assessment of the hemodynamic renal artery stenosis (RAS).1-4 Accordingly, an expert consensus panel of the American Heart Association recommended that a peak systolic gradient of at least 20 mmHg (1 mmHg=0.133 kPa), or a mean pressure gradient of 10 mmHg, be used to identify candidate lesions for revascularization in symptomatic patients with RAS.5 A large number of multicenter clinical trials suggested that renal pressure gradient demonstrated several convincing characteristics in the evaluation of stenosis severity.5,6 In a study carried by Leesar et al,7 62 patients with RAS were recruited to investigate the comparative accuracy of renal resting and hyperemic TSPG, FFR, intravascular ultrasound and angiographic parameters in predicting hypertension improvement after stenting of RAS. From the results, the hyperemic TSPG had a larger area under the curve than most other parameters and a hyperemic TSPG ≥21 mmHg had the highest sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (82%, 84%, and 84%, respectively). The average intravascular ultrasound area stenosis was markedly greater in RAS with a hyperemic TSPG ≥21 mmHg. After stenting for 12 months, hypertension improved in 84% patients with an hyperemic TSPG ≥21 mmHg versus 36% patients with a hyperemic TSPG <21 mmHg (P <0.01). The number of antihypertensive medications was also significantly lower in patients with an hyperemic TSPG ≥21 mmHg that was the only independent predictor of hypertension improvement by multivariable analysis.7 According to a study conducted by Jones et al,8 22 patients with uncontrolled hypertension were enrolled and underwent hemodynamic assessment of resting and hyperemic TSPG because of intermediate RAS (angiographic diameter stenosis 30%-75%). However, visual and measured angiographic lesion severity did not correlate with TSPG either at baseline or with hyperemia. Subsequently, 13 (60%) patients underwent renal artery stenting for hemodynamic significant RAS (hyperemic TSPG >20 mmHg). At follow-up at least 30 days, there was a significant decrease in systolic blood pressure ((167±24) vs. (134±19) mmHg, P <0.001). They concluded that TSPG measurement might be warranted for the intermediate RAS rather than relying on stenosis severity alone.8 Moreover, Mangiacapra et al9 recruited 53 consecutive hypertensive patients with unilateral RAS scheduled for renal artery intervention. TSPG were measured at baseline and dopamine-induced hyperemia before renal stenting. After the stent for 3 months follow-up, average reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure were (−20±30) mmHg and (−2±12) mmHg, respectively. By multivariate analysis, hyperemia TSPG was the only independent predictor of the variations of blood pressure. Besides, patients were considered as “responders” who showed a decline more than 20 mmHg in systolic blood pressure (area under the curve=0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.64 to 0.90; P=0.001). They concluded that TSPG ≥20 mmHg is highly predictive of arterial hypertension improvement after renal stenting and useful for appropriate selection of patients who might benefit from stenting.9,10 However, the measurement of renal TSPG and FFR are limited by the invasiveness and high cost, thus, a noninvasive technique of renal TSPG and FFR are urgently needed as alternative diagnostic tools. An interesting paper by Bley et al2 assessed RAS with a novel technology of noninvasive assessment of TSPG in porcine model. It was presented that the noninvasive TSPG measurements derived from high-spatial- and temporal-resolution four-dimensional magnetic resonance (MR) flow measurements was feasible and accurate in assessing hemodynamic significance in a porcine model of RAS.2 The technique is definitely a significant advance in evaluating the severity of RAS and might have the potential to become a practical tool in clinical laboratory. TSPG is a practical tool to evaluate the stenosis severity of RAS. To date, the invasive measurements of TSPG require an arterial puncture and catheterization with the associated risks and radiation exposure. Thus, a novel MR angiographic technique with respiratory-gated phase-contrast vastly undersampled isotropic projection (VIPR) was developed to assess TSPG, but was limited by respiratory motion.3 By combining retrospective electrocardiographic gating, adaptive respiratory gating, and other correction schemes, phase-contrast VIPR of the renal arteries has addressed the shortcoming.2 It was displayed that TSPG could be measured noninvasively to evaluate the hemodynamic significance of mild to moderate renal stenosis by using an unenhanced MR angiographic technique, phase-contrast VIPR, with respiratory gating. However, the study was only investigated in twelve porcine. Thus, the small sample size may reduce the reliability and accuracy of the results. Moreover, bilateral RAS model of porcine was created surgically, which was of significant difference from patients with atherosclerotic RAS in pathological changes. Specially, the elasticity of arterial wall in lesion-specific condition may greatly influence the invasive measurement of TSPG. Finally, despite little difference between the pressures measured with the pressure-sensing guidewires and derived from phase-contrast VIPR, the MR-based measurements tend to underestimate TSPG and no definite threshold of noninvasive TSPG was validated to define lesion as functional significant or indications for revascularization. Therefore, clinical trials with a large size of patients with RAS as investigation samples over porcine models are needed to evaluate the accuracy of this new technique before its use from bench to bedside. Although this novel technique is available to overcome the risk of invasive measurement, TSPG, as a highly systemic pressure-dependent index to evaluate the stenosis severity, has its own limitations. First, it can be affected by multiple factors, including systemic circulation and the state of renal blood flow and renal microvasculature.4 Second, a rather modest pressure gradient across a renal artery (10% of aortic pressure) could be found hemodynamic significance with increase of renin production.1 Third, the criteria of TSPG to define a significant RAS and to guide intervention are vague. Guidelines from American Heart Association recommended a translesional peak systolic pressure gradient of >20 mmHg or 10 mmHg mean difference as indications for revascularization in moderate lesions (≥50% and ≤80%) but they added that it had not been validated with regard to clinical outcomes.5 Another consensus from the Society of Interventional Radiology Standards of Practice Committee recommended using a peak systolic pressure gradient of >10% or a mean pressure gradient of >5% for those 50%-75% narrowed stenosis but still obscure enough with a definite renal hemodynamic criteria or practical measurement criteria.6 To overcome these arbitrary presumptions, renal FFR, calculated exactly like coronary FFR, was developed to evaluate the severity of RAS. The first published study focusing on renal FFR as a dynamic assessment of the stenosis significance under hyperemic conditions is safe and feasible.4 It indicated that renal FFR was a promising tool to evaluate moderate RAS with an excellent correlation between renal FFR and the hyperemic mean TSPG (r= −0.94; P <0.0001) and the resting mean translesional pressure gradient (r=−0.76; P=0.0016).4 In a study by Mitchell et al,11 renal FFR was measured after renal stent in 17 patients with refractory hypertension and moderate to severe unilateral RAS. Of all, 10 patients had normal baseline renal FFR (≥0.80) and 7 patients with an abnormal (<0.80). At 3 months after intervention, 86% of patients with an abnormal renal FFR experienced improvement in their blood pressure, compared with only 30% of those with normal renal FFR (P=0.04). However, neither systolic, mean, or hyperemic TSPG, nor the severity of angiographic stenosis, were predictive of blood pressure improvement.11 Recently, Kadziela et al12 investigated the resting TSPG, resting the ratio of mean distal to lesion and mean proximal pressures (Pd/Pa ratio) and renal FFR in relation to angiography and Doppler ultrasonography in 44 hypertensive patients with at least intermediate RAS. Mean Pd/Pa ratio was 0.86±0.12 and decreased to 0.79±0.13 after papaverine administration. Both Pd/Pa ratio and renal FFR strongly correlated with TSPG, moderately with angiographic data (minimal lumen diameter, percent diameter stenosis) and less pronounced manner with ultrasound parameters (renal/aortic ratio, resistive index). They finally suggested that the best accuracy cut-off points were 0.93 for Pd/Pa ratio and 0.80 for renal FFR for predicting severe RAS.12 As a pressure-derived index, the advantages of FFR are as follows. First, it is lesion-specific and provides a measure of the reduction in renal blood flow caused by the stenosis.4 Second, it takes into account collateral flow, which can render an anatomical blockage without functionally significance. Third, it has a definite threshold to define hemodynamic significance (<0.80). Finally, a morphological severe stenosis might not induce a significant TSPG if the artery has slow flow due to renal parenchymal impairment, which, in contrast, adds to the feasibility of assessing the severity of RAS diagnosed by renal FFR. The technique of three dimensional model reconstructions was getting mature with the development of computer vision and graphics, which enable the noninvasive measurement of FFR. Furthermore, unlike the invasive and costly procedure,13 noninvasive FFR is simple, practical and more acceptable by patients. A recent study has determined the diagnostic performance of a new method for quantifying coronary FFR with computational fluid dynamics applied to coronary CT angiography data in patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease (per-vessel accuracy 84.3%, sensitivity 87.9%, specificity 82.2%, positive predictive value 73.9%, and negative predictive value 92.2%).14 Further well-conducted multicenter study demonstrated that noninvasive FFR plus CT was associated with improved diagnostic accuracy and discrimination compared with coronary CT angiography alone (per-patient sensitivity 90%).15 These studies fully demonstrated that the noninvasive measurement of coronary FFR was a feasible and reliable technique with significant accuracy. Moreover, they recently suggested that the novel methods applied to CT angiography data is also applicable to other common cardiovascular conditions including renovascular disease, and may be used to determine whether vascular stenoses are significant.16 In summary, we believe that computational fluid dynamics based noninvasive assessment of renal FFR may be a potential diagnostic tool for the lesion-specific ischemia and hemodynamic significant RAS. Importantly, the novel method may also enable prediction of renal flow changes and make clinical decisions of the relative benefit of renal artery therapeutic intervention.