Effect of acute myocardial infarction on the utility of fractional flow reserve for the physiologic assessment of the severity of coronary artery narrowing

• Published in: The American journal of cardiology Vol. 93; no. 9; pp. 1102 - 1106
• Main Authors: McClish, J.Christopher, Ragosta, Michael, Powers, Eric R, Barringhaus, Kurt G, Gimple, Lawrence W, Fischer, Joshua, Garnett, James, Siadaty, Mir, Sarembock, Ian J, Samady, Habib
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York, NY Elsevier Inc 01.05.2004; Elsevier; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Cardiology; Cardiology. Vascular system; Coronary Angiography; Coronary Circulation - physiology; Coronary heart disease; Coronary Stenosis - physiopathology; Coronary vessels; Electrocardiography; Female; Heart; Heart attacks; Humans; Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Multivariate Analysis; Myocardial Infarction - physiopathology; Myocarditis. Cardiomyopathies; Patients; Severity of Illness Index; Statistics as Topic; Stroke Volume - physiology; Virginia; Virginia; Myocardial infarction; Reserve; Heart disease; Acute; Coronary artery; Cardiovascular disease; Narrowing; Circulatory system; Cardiology; Myocardial disease; Phlebology
• ISSN: 0002-9149; 1879-1913
• DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.01.035

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has been shown to be a useful physiologic index of coronary lesion severity in myocardial beds of patients without prior infarction and in those with remote infarction. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) causes myocardial necrosis and microvascular stunning, embolization, and damage. Whether FFR remains a useful index of epicardial flow in the setting of recent myocardial infarction is not established. Cardiac risk factors, serum troponin I, angiographic minimal lumen diameter (MLD), percent diameter stenosis (DS), lesion length, vessel reference diameter, hyperemic central aortic pressure, hyperemic pressure distal to stenosis, and FFR were compared in 43 vessels subtending recent AMI beds to 25 control vessels, matched by lesion length and MLD, in patients without AMI. There were no differences in DS, MLD, lesion length, or reference diameter between AMI and non-AMI groups. Patients with AMI had mean troponin I levels of 91.8 ± 162 ng/ml. Left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly lower in patients with than without AMI (55 ± 9% vs 62 ± 8%, p <0.05). There were no significant differences in hyperemic central aortic pressure (92 ± 13 vs 99 ± 15 mm Hg, p = NS), hyperemic pressure distal to the stenosis (62 ± 17 vs 66 ± 19 mm Hg, p = NS), or FFR (0.67 ± 17 vs 0.68 ± 17, p = NS) between recent AMI and non-AMI control patients. There was a significant correlation between DS and FFR for both patients with (p <0.001) and without (p = 0.003) infarctions. Thus, FFR and the relation between FFR and DS of lesions subtending AMI was not significantly different from FFR of angiographically matched lesions in patients without AMI.