Impact on Fractional Flow Reserve of Donor Artery by Chronic Total Obstruction Revascularization
Guoxin Fan,Xiaolong Qi,Changqing Yang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.25100
IF: 2.3
2013-01-01
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
Abstract:We take great interest in the article by Sachdeva et al. [1], which measured fractional flow reserve (FFR) of donor artery before and after successful chronic total obstruction (CTO) recanalization. However, we have several concerns with regard to the small sample bias the study presented. Previous case report has demonstrated an interesting phenomenon that successful CTO percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) could reverse an ischemia donor FFR to normal [2]. The study herein enrolled a consecutive series of CTO patients with severe angina to investigate the issue. However, only 50 consecutive patients with successful CTO recanalization were involved in the study, which greatly reduces the reliability and accuracy of the result. Meanwhile, we have to notice that only 14 patients (six reversed to normal) with intermediate stenosis (30–70%) of donor artery were under investigation. So, how could we trust the study did “define the frequency of this phenomenon” rather than an element of serendipity? It was not even convincible at all to declare that “initial revascularization of the CTO rendered the intermediate donor artery lesion physiologically nonsignificant (FFR> 0.81) in more than 60% of patients, suggesting this approach as the preferred strategy.” In Table 2, DFFR of ischemia patients #8, #9 preand post-PCI of CTO were 0 and 0.06, and DFFR of nonischemia patients #11, #13, #14 preand post-PCI of CTO were 0, 0.03, and 0.01, respectively. The study elucidated the reason for the lack of FFR increase and FFR decrease were the unchanged condition of collateral resistance, small myocardial area supplied by the CTO territory, and even the FFR measurement variability (#9, maximal DFFR: 0.06). It is quite plausible, however, FFR measurement variability, as another bias factor, could also explain FFR increases in reversal cases (#5, DFFR: 0.03). Furthermore, the unchanged condition of collateral resistance and small myocardial area supplied by the CTO territory were quite randomized and complex. Thus, it is rational to argue that CTO recanalization might reverse the normal FFR to ischemia value, though no such cases were presented in this small-size study. Evidence-based medicine requires long-term outcomes and life improvement evidences in patients to recommend a preferred strategy. However, the study, with a mean follow-up of 1.3 years and no outcomes of donor vessel prior PCI control group, presented a case (#2) in reversal group (1/6) that had a subsequent donor artery lesion revascularization. Therefore, it was not a compelling argument to take the socalled “preferred therapeutic strategy” from “suggestion” to “recommendation.” Moreover, it was a lame argument to clarify that “in cases where FFR remained ischemia, the donor obstructive disease was severe enough that pressure losses occurred to the extent that ischemia persisted,” because pre-PCI FFR of ischemia persistent group (patients #7, 8, 9) were