Hemodynamic Insights into Combined Fractional Flow Reserve and Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Assessment Through Quantitative [15O]H2O PET Myocardial Perfusion Imaging

Ruben W. de Winter,Pepijn A. van Diemen,Stefan P. Schumacher,Ruurt A. Jukema,Yvemarie B.O. Somsen,Roel Hoek,Albert C. van Rossum,Jos W.R. Twisk,Guus A. de Waard,Alexander Nap,Pieter G. Raijmakers,Roel S. Driessen,Paul Knaapen,Ibrahim Danad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.123.265973

2024-02-02

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Abstract:In patients evaluated for obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), guidelines recommend using either fractional flow reserve (FFR) or instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) to guide coronary revascularization decision-making. The hemodynamic significance of lesions with discordant FFR and iFR measurements is debated. This study compared [ 15 O]H 2 O PET–derived absolute myocardial perfusion between vessels with concordant and discordant FFR and iFR measurements. Methods: We included 197 patients suspected of obstructive CAD who had undergone [ 15 O]H 2 O PET perfusion imaging and combined FFR/iFR interrogation in 468 vessels. Resting myocardial blood flow (MBF), hyperemic MBF, and coronary flow reserve (CFR) were compared among 4 groups: FFR low/iFR low ( n = 79), FFR high/iFR low ( n = 22), FFR low/iFR high ( n = 22), and FFR high/iFR high ( n = 345). Predefined [ 15 O]H 2 O PET thresholds for ischemia were 2.3 mL·min –1 ·g –1 or less for hyperemic MBF and 2.5 or less for CFR. Results: Hyperemic MBF was lower in the concordant low (2.09 ± 0.67 mL·min –1 ·g –1 ), FFR high/iFR low (2.41 ± 0.80 mL·min –1 ·g –1 ), and FFR low/iFR high (2.40 ± 0.69 mL·min –1 ·g –1 ) groups compared with the concordant high group (2.91 ± 0.84 mL·min –1 ·g –1 ) ( P < 0.001, P = 0.004, and P < 0.001, respectively). A lower CFR was observed in the concordant low (2.37 ± 0.76) and FFR high/iFR low (2.64 ± 0.84) groups compared with the concordant high group (3.35 ± 1.07, P < 0.01 for both). However, for vessels with either low FFR or low iFR, quantitative hyperemic MBF and CFR values exceeded the ischemic threshold in 38% and 49%, respectively. In addition, resting MBF exhibited a negative correlation with iFR ( P < 0.001) and was associated with FFR low/iFR high discordance compared with concordant low FFR/low iFR measurements, independent of clinical and angiographic characteristics, as well as hyperemic MBF (odds ratio [OR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.26–0.65; P < 0.001). Conclusion: We found reduced myocardial perfusion in vessels with concordant low and discordant FFR/iFR measurements. However, FFR/iFR combinations often inaccurately classified vessels as either ischemic or nonischemic when compared with hyperemic MBF and CFR. Furthermore, a lower resting MBF was associated with a higher iFR and the occurrence of FFR low/iFR high discordance. Our study showed that although combined FFR/iFR assessment can be useful to estimate the hemodynamic significance of coronary lesions, these pressure-derived indices provide a limited approximation of [ 15 O]H 2 O PET–derived quantitative myocardial perfusion as the physiologic standard of CAD severity.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging