Online first
Original Article
Published online: 2024-07-08

open access

Page views 122
Article views/downloads 54
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Murray law-based quantitative flow ratio for assessment of nonculprit lesions in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Xinjian Li1234, Lin Mi1234, Juntao Duan1234, Liyuan Tao5, Xinye Xu1234, Guisong Wang1234
Pubmed: 38975992

Abstract

Introduction: Revascularization of nonculprit arteries in patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) is now recommended based on several trials. However, the optimal therapeutic strategy of nonculprit lesions remains unknown. Murray law-based Quantitative Flow Ratio (μQFR) is a novel, non-invasive, vasodilator‐free method for evaluating the functional severity of coronary artery stenosis, which has potential applications for nonculprit lesion assessment in STEMI patients.

Material and methods: Patients with STEMI who received staged PCI before hospital discharge were enrolled retrospectively. μQFR analyses of nonculprit vessels were performed based on both acute and staged angiography.

Results: Eighty-four patients with 110 nonculprit arteries were included. The mean acute μQFR was 0.76 ± 0.18, and the mean staged μQFR was 0.75 ± 0.19. The average period between acute and staged evaluation was 8 days. There was a good correlation (r = 0.719, P < 0.001) between acute μQFR and staged μQFR. The classification agreement was 89.09%. The area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve for detecting staged μQFR ≤ 0.80 was 0.931.

Conclusions: It is feasible to calculate the μQFR during the acute phase of STEMI patients. Acute μQFR and staged μQFR have a good correlation and agreement. The μQFR could be a valuable method for assessing functional significance of nonculprit arteries in STEMI patients.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Park DW, Clare RM, Schulte PJ, et al. Extent, location, and clinical significance of non-infarct-related coronary artery disease among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2014; 312(19): 2019–2027.
  2. Politi L, Sgura F, Rossi R, et al. A randomised trial of target-vessel versus multi-vessel revascularisation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: major adverse cardiac events during long-term follow-up. Heart. 2010; 96(9): 662–667.
  3. Wald DS, Morris JK, Wald NJ, et al. PRAMI Investigators. Randomized trial of preventive angioplasty in myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2013; 369(12): 1115–1123.
  4. Engstrøm T, Kelbæk H, Helqvist S, et al. DANAMI-3—PRIMULTI Investigators. Complete revascularisation versus treatment of the culprit lesion only in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (DANAMI-3—PRIMULTI): an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015; 386(9994): 665–671.
  5. Gershlick A, Khan J, Kelly D, et al. Randomized Trial of Complete Versus Lesion-Only Revascularization in Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for STEMI and Multivessel Disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2015; 65(10): 963–972.
  6. Smits PC, Laforgia PL, Abdel-Wahab M, et al. Compare-Acute Investigators. Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Multivessel Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376(13): 1234–1244.
  7. Mehta SR, Wood DA, Storey RF, et al. Complete Revascularization with Multivessel PCI for Myocardial Infarction. N Engl J Med. 2019; 381(15): 1411–1421.
  8. Writing Co, Lawton JS, Tamis-Holland JE, et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. ; 2021.
  9. Gaba P, Gersh BJ, Ali ZA, et al. Complete versus incomplete coronary revascularization: definitions, assessment and outcomes. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2021; 18(3): 155–168.
  10. Tu S, Westra J, Yang J, et al. FAVOR Pilot Trial Study Group. Diagnostic Accuracy of Fast Computational Approaches to Derive Fractional Flow Reserve From Diagnostic Coronary Angiography: The International Multicenter FAVOR Pilot Study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9(19): 2024–2035.
  11. Xu Bo, Tu S, Qiao S, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Angiography-Based Quantitative Flow Ratio Measurements for Online Assessment of Coronary Stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 70(25): 3077–3087.
  12. Westra J, Andersen BK, Campo G, et al. Diagnostic Performance of In-Procedure Angiography-Derived Quantitative Flow Reserve Compared to Pressure-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve: The FAVOR II Europe-Japan Study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018; 7(14).
  13. Xu Bo, Tu S, Song L, et al. Angiographic quantitative flow ratio-guided coronary intervention (FAVOR III China): a multicentre, randomised, sham-controlled trial. The Lancet. 2021; 398(10317): 2149–2159.
  14. Tu S, Ding D, Chang Y, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative flow ratio for assessment of coronary stenosis significance from a single angiographic view: A novel method based on bifurcation fractal law. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021; 97 Suppl 2: 1040–1047.
  15. Erbay A, Penzel L, Abdelwahed YS, et al. Feasibility and diagnostic reliability of quantitative flow ratio in the assessment of non-culprit lesions in acute coronary syndrome. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2021; 37(6): 1815–1823.
  16. Kirigaya H, Okada K, Hibi K, et al. Diagnostic performance and limitation of quantitative flow ratio for functional assessment of intermediate coronary stenosis. J Cardiol. 2021; 77(5): 492–499.
  17. Sejr-Hansen M, Westra J, Thim T, et al. Quantitative flow ratio for immediate assessment of nonculprit lesions in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-An iSTEMI substudy. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019; 94(5): 686–692.
  18. Spitaleri G, Tebaldi M, Biscaglia S, et al. Quantitative Flow Ratio Identifies Nonculprit Coronary Lesions Requiring Revascularization in Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018; 11(2): e006023.
  19. Cortés C, Liu L, Berdin SL, et al. Agreement between Murray law-based quantitative flow ratio (μQFR) and three-dimensional quantitative flow ratio (3D-QFR) in non-selected angiographic stenosis: A multicenter study. Cardiol J. 2022; 29(3): 388–395.
  20. Hanratty CG, Koyama Y, Rasmussen HH, et al. Exaggeration of nonculprit stenosis severity during acute myocardial infarction: implications for immediate multivessel revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 40(5): 911–916.
  21. van der Hoeven NW, Janssens GN, de Waard GA, et al. Temporal Changes in Coronary Hyperemic and Resting Hemodynamic Indices in Nonculprit Vessels of Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction. JAMA Cardiol. 2019; 4(8): 736–744.
  22. Thim T, Götberg M, Fröbert O, et al. Nonculprit Stenosis Evaluation Using Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10(24): 2528–2535.