validation and application of ivusivus--mla in lmca ...summitmd.com/pdf/pdf/pm0315_hernandez.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Validation and application of Validation and application of
IVUSIVUS--MLA in LMCA diseaseMLA in LMCA diseaseJose Mª de la Torre Hernandez, MD, PhD, FESC
Interventional Cardiology DptInterventional Cardiology DptCardiologia Valdecilla
Hospital Universitario Marques de ValdecillaSantander. SPAIN
Disclosure Statement of Financial Interest
Within the past 12 months, I or my spouse/partner have had a financial Within the past 12 months, I or my spouse/partner have had a financial p , y p pp , y p pinterest/arrangement or affiliation with the organizations listed below.interest/arrangement or affiliation with the organizations listed below.
Affiliation/Financial Relationship Company• Grant/Research Support • Abbott vascular, Cordynamic• Consulting Fees/Honoraria
• Major Stock Shareholder/Equity
• Abbott, Boston, Cordis, Medtronic, Biotronik, IHT, Lilly, Daychi Sankio, Astra Zeneca, Volcano, St Jude
• Royalty Income• Ownership/Founder• Intellectual Property Rightsp y g• Other Financial Benefit
Washington Heart Center Washington Heart Center ggexperienceexperience
122 pts with intermediate lesions and IVUS with no revascularizationand IVUS with no revascularization. 1 year follow up
Indep. predictors
IVUS MLD as predictor of events
Abizaid et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;34:707-15
Proposed MLA cutProposed MLA cut--off values for LMoff values for LMKang et al. IVUS vs FFR <0.8 4.8 mm22011N= 55N= 55
J i l IVUS FFR 0 9 2Jasti et al. IVUS vs FFR < 0.75 5.9 mm22004N= 55
LITRODe la Torre et al. Physics of flow / Jasti et al. 6 mm2y2011N = 354
Fassa et al. Epidemiol. inferred 7.5 mm220052005N= 214
Clinical validation
Mayo Clinic ExperienceMayo Clinic Experience1994 to 2002: 214 intermediate LMCA lesions with IVUS
MLA cut-off value 7.5 mm2
214 intermediate LMCA lesions with IVUS
MLA cut off value 7.5 mm
Where does 7 5 mm2 comes from ?Where does 7.5 mm comes from ?
121 patients with: “angiographically normal” or “minimally diseased” LMCA
Mean MLA - 2 SDs = 7.5 mm2
Fassa et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:204 –11
Mayo Clinic ExperienceMayo Clinic Experience1994 to 2002: 214 intermediate LMCA lesions with IVUS
Mayo Clinic ExperienceMayo Clinic Experience
Fassa et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:204 –11
Mayo Clinic ExperienceMayo Clinic ExperienceMayo Clinic ExperienceMayo Clinic Experience
> 7.5 Revasc
< 7.5 Revasc
> 7.5 Deferred
< 7.5 Deferred
Fassa et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:204 –11
IVUS IVUS –– FFR in intermediate lesionsFFR in intermediate lesionsi ill U i di ill U i dLouisville Univ. studyLouisville Univ. study
55 patients55 patients
IVUS - FFRIVUS - FFR
Correlation:
FFR 0.75
IVUS MLA5.9 mm2
Jasti et al. Circulation 2004;110:2831-6
Valdecilla Hospital ExperienceValdecilla Hospital ExperienceP ti li ti fP ti li ti f MLA 6MLA 6 22 tt ff lff lProspective application of Prospective application of MLA 6 mmMLA 6 mm22 as cutas cut--off value off value
MACE in a 40MACE in a 40±±17 months follow up17 months follow up79 ptsp25-50% LMCA stenosiswith IVUSwith IVUS
MLA < 6 mm2 REVASCMLA > 6 mm2 DEFERMLA > 6 mm2 DEFER
Only 2 cases with LM revascularization in 8 years follow up97 6% free of LM revascularization at 5 years
De la Torre Hernandez et al. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2007;60:811-6
97.6% free of LM revascularization at 5 years
MLA 6 2LMCA
MLA 4 2
MLA = 6 mm2Proximal LADMLA = 4 mm2
Proximal LCxJasti et al CirculationMLA = 4 mm2
Jasti et al. Circulation 2004;110:2831-6
LMCAr3 = LADr3 + LCXr3
Non-LM intermediate lesions: MLA t ff 4 2MLA cut-off 4 mm2
Abizaid, et al. Circulation 1999;100:256, 256—61
Abizaid et al. Am J Card 1998;82:423.8
Correlation IVUS Correlation IVUS –– FFR in nonFFR in non--LMLML i MLA f FFR MLA f FFRLesions MLA for FFR
< 0.75MLA for FFR < 0.8
Takagi 1999 51 3 mm2
B i i 53 4 2Briguori 2001 53 4 mm2
Ben-Dor 2011 92 2 8 mm2 3 2 mm2Ben-Dor 2011 92 2.8 mm2 3.2 mm2
Koo 2011 267 2.8 mm2Koo 2011 267 2.8 mm
Kang 2011 236 2.4 mm2
Gonzalo 2012 61 2.4 mm2
F1RST 2013 367 3 mm2
VERDICT 2013 312 2.9 mm2
Waksman R, et al. FIRST: Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular Ultrasound Relationship Study.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Mar 5;61(9):917-23.
Clinical outcomes after IVUS and FFR assessment of intermediate coronary lesions. Propensity score matching of large cohorts from y p y g g
two institutions with differential approach.400 pts with FFR assessment vs. 400 pts with IVUS assessment
MLA < 4 mm2 in vessels >3 mmMLA < 3.5 mm2 in vessels 2.5-3 mm
Overall
Deferred
De la Torre Hernandez et al. Eurointervention(In press)
THE FRACTAL NATUREOF VASCULAR TREESArterial bifurcations have a 3DArterial bifurcations have a 3Dblood-distribution function
Q1D1 = D major daughter vessel
QoDo = D mother vessel
Q2D2 = D minor daughter vessel
Law of flow (mass) conservation Qo = Q1+Q2
Murray´s law Do3 = D13 + D23Murray s law Do = D1 + D2HK 7/3 model Do7/3 = D17/3 + D27/3
Linear law (epicardial coronary artery) Do = 0.678*(D1+D2)*( p y y) ( )
* Finet G et al. Eurointervention 2007;3:10-17
Finet G et al.Eurointervention 2007;3:10-17
Huo Y et al.EuroIntervention 2012;7:1310-1316
Threshold for MLA in prox. LAD - LCx
LAD / LCx MLA 3 3.5 4
Murray`s law
LM MLA 5 5.5 6
Linear law
LM MLA 5 8 6 4 7 3LM MLA 5.8 6.4 7.3
MLA 6 2LMCA
MLA 3 2
MLA = 6 mm2Proximal LADMLA = 3 mm2
Proximal LCx (incl. dominant)
MLA = 3 mm2
( )Jasti et al. Circulation 2004;110:2831-6
Linear law (epicardial coronary artery)D 0 678*(D1 D2)Do = 0.678*(D1+D2)
Finet G et al EurointerventionFinet G et al. Eurointervention 2007;3:10-17
THE CLINICAL VALIDATION for 6 mm 2
22 centers (inclusion in 2007)
De la Torre Hernandez, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 58:351-8
RESULTSRESULTSPopulation includedPopulation included
354 pts
2 2MLA ≥ 6 mm2 MLA < 6 mm2
186 pts 168 pts
7 revascularized 16 no revascularized
No Revascularización LM Revascularización LM179 pts (96%) 152 pts (90%)179 pts (96%) 152 pts (90%)
56% PCI in other lesions 55% CABG45% PCI of LMCA45% PCI of LMCA (+ other lesions in 62%)
Clinical outcome of pts with deferredrevascularization (MLA > 6 mm2)
100
90
80
70
y (%
) Survival free of cardiac death, MI and LMCA revascularizacion
60
50
l pro
babi
lity
at 2 years:
94 2± 1 8%40
30
20
Surv
iva 94.2 ± 1.8%
20
10
00 150 300 450 600 750
0
Time
Compared clinical outcome in pts p pwith and without LMCA revascularization
1 0 0
9 0
Defer
9 0
8 0
7 0
Revasc
7 0
6 0Cardiac death
5 0
4 0P=0.5
3 0
2 0
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 7 0 0
1 0
00 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 7 0 0
T im e
Compared clinical outcome in pts p pwith and without LMCA revascularization
1 0 0
Defer9 0
8 0
Defer
Revasc7 0
6 0
5 0
Cardiac death, MI and any revascularizacion
5 0
4 0
3 0
P=0.3
3 0
2 0
1 0
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 7 0 0
1 0
0
T im e
Compared clinical outcome in deferred pts p pwith MLA > 6mm2 (n=179) and < 6 mm2 (n=16)
1 0 0
9 0 6 D f9 0
8 0
7 0
> 6 Defer
7 0
6 0
5 0
< 6 Defer
C di d th MI d5 0
4 0
3 0
Cardiac death, MI and any revascularizacion
3 0
2 0P=0.02
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 7 0 0
1 0
00 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 7 0 0
T im e
Patients with deferred LM revascularization
MLA 5 - 6 mm2 6 - 7.5 mm2
Nº pts 16 53
Events 5 (31.2%) 3 (5.6%)
FFRFFR
VSVS.
IVUS
Stenosis MLD
LITRO
MLA > 6 MLA<6 MLA > 6 MLA<6
MLA > 6 MLA < 6
Outcomes in both studies
1 0 0
9 0
(179) DEF > 6(138) DEF > 0.8
8 0
7 0
6 0(152) REV < 6
(75) REV < 0.86 0
5 0
4 0MACEMACE
3 0
2 0
1 0
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 7 0 0
1 0
0
T im eT im e
2 yrs 2 yrsFFR studyHamilos et al.
IVUS studyDe la Torre Hernandez et al.
55 ptspLM stenosis 30 – 80%
4.8 mm 2
Kang SJ et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2011; 4: 1168-1174
No follow up providedNo follow up provided
71% f l i ith FFR 0 75 0 871% of lesions with FFR 0.75 - 0.8 29% of lesions with FFR > 0.8
Revascularized
Deferring LMCA revascularization:safety concerns
Sensitivity 100%
safety concerns
2 2
Sensitivity 100%
4.8 mm2 6 mm2
Kang et al. Jasti et al.
Differences between studiesDifferences between studies
Kang et al. Jasti et al. LITRO study
MLA, mm2 4.9 7.6 7.2
PB % 69 59 59PB, % 69 59 59
EEM area, mm2 17.8 18.7 18.8
Method FFRIV adenosine
FFRIC
adenosine
Clinicalvalidation
adenosine42 - 56 g
Cut-off MLA 4 8 5 9 6Cut-off MLA 4.8 5.9 6
Euro PCR 2012
Intravascular ultrasound comparison of left main coronary artery disease between white and asian patients.Rusinova RP, Mintz GS, Choi SY, et al. Am J Cardiol. 2013 Apr 1;111(7):979-84.Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York; Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New Yor
99 Asian patients (Japan and South Korea) 99 matched control United States white patients
ith t bl li i l t ti d >30% LMCA t iwith a stable clinical presentation and >30% LMCA stenosis
At the minimum lumen site and over the entire LMCA length Asian patients had a:
Smaller lumen area (5 2 ± 1 8 vs 6 2 ± 14 mm2; p <0 0001)Smaller lumen area (5.2 ± 1.8 vs 6.2 ± 14 mm2; p <0.0001)
Larger vessel area (20.0 ± 4.9 vs 18.4 ± 4.4 mm2; p <0.0001)
Larger plaque burden (72 ± 10 vs 64 ± 12%: p <0.0001)
FFR is more appropriate in assessing i t di t l iintermediate lesions
Why IVUS in ambiguous LM ?Why IVUS in ambiguous LM ?y gy g• There is probably more agreement between IVUS and
FFR in assessing LM lesion significance than in assessing non-LM lesions
Li it d i bilit i LM l th– Limited variability in LM length– Limited variability in supplied myocardium
Large LM size– Large LM size
• Main limitations for FFRMain limitations for FFR– Gray zone 0.75-0.8 or even could be 0.75-0.85 for LM (?)– No characterization of LM disease (specially in bifurcations)– Not fully reliable in presence of severe LAD / LCx disease
• IVUS provides anatomic information• IVUS provides anatomic information – IVUS may be used to guide LM PCI
FFR – MLA in LM vs non-LM lesions
Severe lesions in LAD or LCx:FFR measurement not reliable
Differential involvement of LAD / LCx ostiumFFR measurement not reliable
for LM assessmentof LAD / LCx ostiumDifferent FFR readings
TheThe ““doubledouble valuevalue” of IVUS” of IVUSTheThe doubledouble valuevalue of IVUS of IVUS
IVUSCABG (40 45%)*
LMCACABG (40-45%)*
Significant40 45%
intermediatelesion
40 – 45%
FFR PCI (55-60%)*
IVUS
*National registry RENACIMIENTO (Baz et al ACC 2010)National registry RENACIMIENTO (Baz et al. ACC 2010)1479 patients with severe LM disease
Patients with MLA > 6mm2 and deferred revascularization in LITRO study
Revascularization of LM in follow up
No Yes*n= 171 n=8
MLD 2.9 ± 0.6 2.5 ± 0.7MLA 9.3 ± 3 8.4 ± 2.1
MLA:MLA:6-7 20% 25%7-8 17% 25%8-9 18.5% 12.5%> 9 43.8% 37.5%
* 4 (50%) showed lesion progression at the time of revascularization
Average MLA in pts incurring events g gafter deferred revascularization
LITRO study Okabe et al. Abizaid et al.
8.4 ± 2 7.2 ± 2.2 6.8 ± 4.4
Ok b t l J I C di l 2008 20 635 9Okabe et al. J Invas Cardiol 2008;20:635-9Abizaid et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;34:707-15De la Torre, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 58:351-8
9 th9 months
9 monthsMLA 10 4 2 PB 59% MLA 5 7 mm2 PB 75%9 monthsMLA 10.4 mm2 PB 59% MLA 5.7 mm2 PB 75%
Plaque burden in LM diseasePlaque burden in LM disease
• PB > 67% predictor of FFR < 0.75 in LM (in Jasti et al )(in Jasti et al.)
• PB > 72% predictor of FFR < 0 8 in LM• PB > 72% predictor of FFR < 0.8 in LM (in Kang et al.)
• PB was the only predictor of events in deferred LM l i ti ft 5LM revascularization after 5 years(in Okabe et al.)
Jasti et al. Circulation 2004;110:2831-6. Kang SJ et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2011; 4: 1168-1174. Okabe et al. J Invas Cardiol 2008;20:635-9
MLA cut-off for LM
5 mm2 6 mm2 7 5 mm2
Small body size Diabetes insulin dep
5 mm 6 mm 7.5 mm
Small body size
Elderly
Diabetes insulin-dep.Big body sizeHigh physical activity
(low physical activity)
PB < 60%
(young, sports, job,..)
MV diseaseNo positive remodelling
Positive RemodellingPB > 70%TCFA
S t i i t tSymptoms, non-invasive tests, ...
¡¡ Treat the patient and not the numbers ¡¡
ConclusionsConclusions• IVUS is a safe method to accurately assess the severity
of ambiguous LM lesions.
• An “universal definite cutoff value” for the LM lumen does not exist.
• There is a narrow range for the LM MLA around 6 mm2gand modulation by other factors is required to make an individual case-based decision:
– Population and patient profileCli i l f– Clinical features
– Angiography: LM and overall coronary treeIVUS PB AS l h l d lli VH– IVUS: PB, AS, plaque morphology, remodelling, VH
– In selected cases, >>> FFR