CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

经导管主动脉瓣置换

Abstract

Recommended Article

Determinants and Impact of Heart Failure Readmission Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Frailty in Older Adults Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement: The FRAILTY-AVR Study Edoxaban versus Vitamin K Antagonist for Atrial Fibrillation after TAVR Prognostic Value of Computed Tomography-Derived Extracellular Volume in TAVR Patients With Low-Flow Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis Evolving concepts in the management of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation Acute Aortic Syndrome Revisited: JACC State-of-the-Art Review Empagliflozin, Health Status, and Quality of Life in Patients with Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: The EMPEROR-Preserved Trial Guideline Update on Indications for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Based on the 2020 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines for Management of Valvular Heart Disease

Original Research2018 Oct 30. [Epub ahead of print]

JOURNAL:Eur Radiol. Article Link

Fractional flow reserve derived from CCTA may have a prognostic role in myocardial bridging

Zhou F, Tang CX, Zhang LJ et al. Keywords: cFFR; coronary CT angiography; myocardial bridging

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE - To evaluate the feasibility of fractional flow reserve (cFFR) derivation from coronary CT angiography (CCTA) in patients with myocardial bridging (MB), its relationship with MB anatomical features, and clinical relevance.


METHODS - This retrospective study included 120 patients with MB of the left anterior descending artery (LAD) and 41 controls. MB location, length, depth, muscle index, instance, and stenosis rate were measured. cFFR values were compared between superficial MB (2 mm), deep MB (> 2 mm), and control groups. Factors associated with abnormal cFFR values (0.80) were analyzed.


RESULTS - MB patients demonstrated lower cFFR values in MB and distal segments than controls (all p < 0.05). A significant cFFR difference was only found in the MB segment during systole between superficial (0.94, 0.90-0.96) and deep MB (0.91, 0.83-0.95) (p = 0.018). Abnormal cFFR values were found in 69 (57.5%) MB patients (29 [49.2%] superficial vs. 40 [65.6%] deep; p = 0.069). MB length (OR = 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.10; p = 0.001) and systolic stenosis (OR = 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.07; p = 0.021) were the main predictors for abnormal cFFR, with an area under the curve of 0.774 (95% CI 0.689-0.858; p < 0.001). MB patients with abnormal cFFR reported more typical angina (18.8% vs 3.9%, p = 0.023) than patients with normal values.


CONCLUSION - MB patients showed lower cFFR values than controls. Abnormal cFFR values have a positive association with symptoms of typical angina. MB length and systolic stenosis demonstrate moderate predictive value for an abnormal cFFR value. KEY POINTSMB patients showed lower cFFR values than controls. Abnormal cFFR values have a positive association with typical angina symptoms. MB length and systolic stenosis demonstrate moderate predictive value for an abnormal cFFR value .