Pooled diagnostic accuracy of resting distal to aortic coronary pressure referenced to fractional flow reserve: The importance of resting coronary physiology
Abstract
Introduction
Both resting and hyperemic physiologic methods to guide coronary revascularization improve cardiovascular outcomes compared with angiographic guidance alone. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) remains underutilized due to concerns regarding hyperemia, prompting study of resting distal to aortic coronary pressure (Pd/Pa). Pd/Pa is a vasodilator-free resting index unlike FFR. While Pd/Pa is similar to another resting index, instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), it is a whole-cycle measurement not limited to the wave-free diastolic period. Pd/Pa is not validated clinically although multiple accuracy studies have been performed. Our meta-analysis examines the overall diagnostic accuracy of Pd/Pa referenced to FFR, the accepted invasive standard of ischemia.
Methods
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Central, ProQuest, and Web of Science databases for full text articles published through August 9, 2017 addressing the diagnostic accuracy of Pd/Pa referenced to FFR < 0.80. The following keywords were used: “distal coronary artery pressure” OR “Pd/Pa” AND “fractional flow reserve” OR “FFR.”
Results
In total, 14 studies comprising 7004 lesions were identified. Pooled diagnostic accuracy estimates of Pd/Pa versus FFR < 0.80 were: sensitivity, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.75-0.78); specificity, 0.82 (0.81-0.83); positive likelihood ratio, 4.7 (3.3-6.6); negative likelihood ratio, 0.29 (0.24-0.34); diagnostic odds ratio, 18.1 (14.4-22.6); area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.88; and diagnostic accuracy of 0.80 (0.76-0.83).
Conclusions
Pd/Pa shows adequate agreement with FFR as a resting index of coronary stenosis severity without the undesired effects and cost of hyperemic agents. Pd/Pa has the potential to guide coronary revascularization with easier application and availability compared with iFR and FFR.
