Format

Send to

Choose Destination
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Oct 22;11(20):2019-2031. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.07.019. Epub 2018 Aug 25.

Coronary Hemodynamics in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Implications for Clinical Indices of Coronary Stenosis Severity.

Author information

1
National Heart and Lung Institute, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
2
Department of Cardiology, Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Sweden.
3
Department of Cardiology, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
4
Cardiology Department, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
5
Department of Cardiology, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
6
Department of Cardiology, Conquest Hospital, St. Leonards-on-Sea, United Kingdom.
7
National Heart and Lung Institute, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: sayan.sen@imperial.ac.uk.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

In this study, a systematic analysis was conducted of phasic intracoronary pressure and flow velocity in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease, undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), to determine how AS affects: 1) phasic coronary flow; 2) hyperemic coronary flow; and 3) the most common clinically used indices of coronary stenosis severity, instantaneous wave-free ratio and fractional flow reserve.

BACKGROUND:

A significant proportion of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) have concomitant coronary artery disease. The effect of the valve on coronary pressure, flow, and the established invasive clinical indices of stenosis severity have not been studied.

METHODS:

Twenty-eight patients (30 lesions, 50.0% men, mean age 82.1 ± 6.5 years) with severe AS and coronary artery disease were included. Intracoronary pressure and flow assessments were performed at rest and during hyperemia immediately before and after TAVR.

RESULTS:

Flow during the wave-free period of diastole did not change post-TAVR (29.78 ± 14.9 cm/s vs. 30.81 ± 19.6 cm/s; p = 0.64). Whole-cycle hyperemic flow increased significantly post-TAVR (33.44 ± 13.4 cm/s pre-TAVR vs. 40.33 ± 17.4 cm/s post-TAVR; p = 0.006); this was secondary to significant increases in systolic hyperemic flow post-TAVR (27.67 ± 12.1 cm/s pre-TAVR vs. 34.15 ± 17.5 cm/s post-TAVR; p = 0.02). Instantaneous wave-free ratio values did not change post-TAVR (0.88 ± 0.09 pre-TAVR vs. 0.88 ± 0.09 post-TAVR; p = 0.73), whereas fractional flow reserve decreased significantly post-TAVR (0.87 ± 0.08 pre-TAVR vs. 0.85 ± 0.09 post-TAVR; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS:

Systolic and hyperemic coronary flow increased significantly post-TAVR; consequently, hyperemic indices that include systole underestimated coronary stenosis severity in patients with severe AS. Flow during the wave-free period of diastole did not change post-TAVR, suggesting that indices calculated during this period are not vulnerable to the confounding effect of the stenotic aortic valve.

KEYWORDS:

TAVR; aortic stenosis; coronary flow; fractional flow reserve; instantaneous wave-free ratio

PMID:
30154062
PMCID:
PMC6197079
DOI:
10.1016/j.jcin.2018.07.019
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center