This is a randomized, non-inferiority, crossover investigation comparing the Direct Wire Pacing (DWP) versus standard method to measure Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) in subjects with FFR indications. All subjects requiring on a clinical basis a pressure wire assessment of coronary artery stenosis(es) will be eligible to take part in the study.
Pressure wire-based Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) has become the reference standard index of haemodynamic significance to guide revascularisation of intermediate coronary artery lesions. The FFR measurement determines the ratio of the maximum blood flow that can be achieved in a diseased or narrowed coronary artery to the maximum blood flow in a normal coronary artery. This ratio represents the potential decrease in distal coronary flow relative to coronary stenosis. FFR is easily measured during routine coronary angiography using a pressure wire to calculate the ratio of coronary pressure distal to a stenosis or diseased segment to aortic pressure under conditions of maximum myocardial hyperemia. An FFR of 1.0 is widely accepted as normal. An FFR of less than 0.80 is generally considered to be associated with coronary ischemia and widely accepted in favor of revascularization rather than conservative management. The current standard method of measuring FFR is to insert a pressure wire into the coronary artery while the hyperaemic agent, usually adenosine, is delivered by intracoronary bolus or continuous intravenous injection. Administration of adenosine may cause bradycardia and thus cause patient vagal discomfort. Direct Wire Pacing (DWP) can potentially overcome the drawbacks of the standard method when measuring FFR. Indeed, DWP allows to transmit an electrical current from the external pacemaker to the heart thanks to metallic FFR guidewire already used, and thus prevent bradycardia. In addition, there are some absolute contraindications to the use of Adenosine such as 2nd or 3rd degree atrioventricular block, untreated sinus dysfunction or long QT syndrome ...DWP could allow this highly recommended diagnostic tool (1A) to be used in this patient population. The investigators would therefore like to determine if the measurement of FFR by DWP would be non-inferior to the standard method to obtain precise FFR values and maximize patient's comfort.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
SINGLE
Enrollment
150
Groupe Hospitalier Mutualiste de Grenoble
Grenoble, France
Reproducibility of the FFR measurement
Evaluated by the number of patients with comparable FFR ratio recording. The FFR ratio should remain constant (+/-0.02) between the two modes of measuring FFR.
Time frame: Intraoperative
Number of participants with Adverse Events
Assessed by the number of participants with adverse events during the procedure.
Time frame: Intraoperative
Tolerance
Assessed by asking patients during each FFR to grade verbally any symptoms of chest discomfort.
Time frame: Intraoperative
correlation between a disproportionately high FFR value and la presence of a (partially) infarcted territory
The correlation between a disproportionately high FFR value in presence of a (partially)infarcted territory will be assessed by the comparison the obtained FFR value, the degree of angiographic stenosis measured and the obtained stimulation threshold.
Time frame: Intraoperative
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.