Prognostic Implications of Post-Intervention Resting Pd/Pa and Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stent Implantation

JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Aug 24;13(16):1920-1933. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.05.042.


Objectives: This study sought to investigate the prognostic implications of post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) nonhyperemic pressure ratios compared with that of post-PCI fractional flow reserve (FFR).

Background: FFR measured after PCI has been shown to possess prognostic implications. However, the prognostic value of post-PCI nonhyperemic pressure ratios has not yet been clarified.

Methods: A total of 588 patients who underwent PCI with available both post-PCI FFR and resting distal coronary pressure-to-aortic pressure ratio (Pd/Pa) were analyzed. Post-PCI FFR and Pd/Pa were measured after successful angiographic stent implantation. The primary outcome was target vessel failure (TVF) up to 2 years, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target vessel revascularization. Prognosis of patients according to post-PCI Pd/Pa was compared with that of post-PCI FFR.

Results: Despite angiographically successful PCI, 18.5% had post-PCI FFR ≤0.80 and 36.9% showed post-PCI Pd/Pa ≤0.92. In post-PCI Pd/Pa >0.92 group, 93.8% of patients showed post-PCI FFR >0.80. Conversely, 60.4% of patients showed post-PCI FFR >0.80 in post-PCI Pd/Pa ≤0.92 group. Although there was significant difference in TVF according to post-PCI FFR (≤0.80 vs. >0.80: 10.3% vs. 2.5%; p < 0.001) and Pd/Pa (≤0.92 vs. >0.92: 6.2% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.029), the reclassification ability of model for TVF was increased only with post-PCI FFR (net reclassification index 0.627; p = 0.003; integrated discrimination index 0.019; p = 0.015), but not with post-PCI Pd/Pa, compared with model including clinical factors. Compared with patients with post-PCI Pd/Pa >0.92, patients with post-PCI Pd/Pa ≤0.92 and FFR ≤0.80 had significantly higher risk of TVF (10.4% vs. 2.5%; adjusted hazard ratio: 4.204; 95% confidence interval: 1.521 to 11.618; p = 0.006); however, those with post-PCI Pd/Pa ≤0.92 but FFR >0.80 showed similar risk of TVF (3.5% vs. 2.5%; adjusted hazard ratio: 1.327; 95% confidence interval: 0.398 to 4.428; p = 0.645).

Conclusions: Over one-half of the patients with abnormal post-PCI Pd/Pa ≤0.92 showed post-PCI FFR >0.80. Compared with post-PCI FFR, post-PCI Pd/Pa showed limited reclassification ability for the occurrence of TVF. Among patients with abnormal post-PCI Pd/Pa, only patients with positive post-PCI FFR showed significantly higher risk of TVF than did those with post-PCI Pd/Pa >0.92. (Prognostic Perspective of Invasive Hyperemic and Non-Hyperemic Physiologic Indices Measured After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PERSPECTIVEPCI]; NCT04265443).

Keywords: drug-eluting stent; fractional flow reserve; nonhyperemic pressure ratio; percutaneous coronary intervention; prognosis.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Multicenter Study

MeSH terms

  • Aged
  • Arterial Pressure
  • Cardiac Catheterization*
  • Coronary Angiography
  • Coronary Artery Disease / diagnosis
  • Coronary Artery Disease / physiopathology
  • Coronary Artery Disease / therapy*
  • Coronary Vessels / physiopathology*
  • Female
  • Fractional Flow Reserve, Myocardial*
  • Hemodynamics*
  • Humans
  • Hyperemia / physiopathology
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Percutaneous Coronary Intervention / adverse effects
  • Percutaneous Coronary Intervention / instrumentation*
  • Predictive Value of Tests
  • Prospective Studies
  • Registries
  • Risk Assessment
  • Risk Factors
  • Seoul
  • Stents*
  • Time Factors
  • Treatment Outcome

Associated data