Virtual Flow Reserve (VFR): Virtual Physiological Test with OCT

Assessing intermediate coronary lesions with intracoronary physiology tests such as fractional flow reserve (FFR) or other non-hyperemic indices is considered the standard of care by both American and European societies. Likewise, intravascular imaging techniques (IVI), be it IVUS or optical coherence tomography (OCT), are of great use in assessing and guiding complex coronary lesions and are also recommended by the current guidelines. 

Virtual Flow Reserve (VFR): prueba fisiológica virtual con OCT

We are aware that the concomitant use of these techniques might be of greater diagnostic value; however, they are rarely used together, mainly because of cost concerns. 

Thanks to the recent development of specific software, we can now combine the diagnostic power of an IVI derived physiological perspective and simultaneous planning using FFR simulation models. 

The aim of this study was to validate the diagnostic performance of virtual flow reserve (VFR) in intermediate lesions vs. FFR. 

FUSION is a multicenter, prospective, single arm study carried out in 27 centers across the US. VFR was mathematically derived from a parameter flow model based on 3-dimensional coronary lumen morphology defining vessels as a flow limiting resistance network. Patients requiring predilation for OCT guidewire crossing, and culprit vessels in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) were excluded.

Read also: NOTION Trial: 10 Year Outcomes, TAVR vs. SAVR in Low Risk Patients.

Co-primary outcomes included sensitivity and specificity in VFR vs. FFR as standard. Vessels were assessed using Dragonfly OPTIS OCT and PressureWire X for FFR.

The primary analysis included 266 vessel assessments with OCT and FFR from a total 312 patients in 27 centers. Mean patient age was 67.4 ± 9.2, 30.4% were women and 36.5% were diabetic. Most patients presented stable (47.3%) or unstable angina (37.9%). Mean angiographic diameter stenosis was 65.5 ± 14.9%, with mean length 19.4 ± 9.3 mm.

Mean FFR resulted 0.83 ± 0.11, with positive FFR in 38.4% of the population, (≤0.80). Mean VFR was 0.81 ± 0.12, and 41.4% presented pathological value (≤0.80). Accuracy resulted 82%, sensitivity 80.4%, and specificity 82.9%, with 74.5% positive predicting value (PPV) and 87.2% negative predicting value (NPV) when looking at VFR vs. a FFR. The area under the curve for diagnosis was 0.88.

Read also: Transcatheter Myotomy for the Treatment of the Dynamic Obstruction of the Left Ventricular Outflow Tract.

The proposed treatment according to angiographic results was 37.1% for optimal medical treatment (OMT), 62.1% for PCI and 0.4% for CABG. Decision making with OCT, resulted in 32.1% OMT, and 65.2% PCI, while FFR assessment saw higher OMT (45.5% (p=0.005)) and lower PCI (52.2% (p=0.007)) rates. Compared against OCT, conventional PCI resulted in a reduction in correct stent diameter by 49% vs. 83.6% according to OCT.

Conclusions

The FUSION study represents the largest prospective study on physiology derived OCT vs invasive FFR, and shows VFR is technically feasible and offers great diagnostic accuracy. The adequate use of VFR has led to changes in clinical decision making. 

Dr. Omar Tupayachi

Dr. Omar Tupayachi.
Member of the Editorial Board of SOLACI.org.

Original Title: Optical Coherence Tomography–Based Functional Stenosis Assessment FUSION-A prospective Multicenter Trial.

Reference: Jeremias A, Maehara A, Matsumura M, Shlofmitz RA, Maksoud A, Akasaka T, Bezerra HG, Fearon WF, Samady H, Samuels B, Rapkin J, Gopinath A, Teraphongphom NT, Buccola J, Ali ZA. Optical Coherence Tomography-Based Functional Stenosis Assessment: FUSION-A Prospective Multicenter Trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2024 Mar 25:e013702. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.123.013702. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 38525609.


Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiology

More articles by this author

Radial Patency in Coronary Procedures: Is Heparin Enough or Should We Aim for Distal Transradial Access?

Transradial access is the preferred route in most coronary procedures due to its proven reduction in mortality compared to transfemoral access. However, one of...

iFR- vs. FFR-Guided Coronary Revascularization: 5-Year Clinical Outcomes

The assessment of coronary stenosis using coronary physiology has become a key tool in guiding revascularization. The two most widely used techniques are fractional...

Patients at High Risk of Bleeding After Coronary Angioplasty: Are Risk Assessment Tools ARC-HBR and PRECISE-DAPT Useful?

Patients undergoing coronary stenting typically receive dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 6 to 12 months, consisting of a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor and aspirin. While DAPT...

ACC 2025 | WARRIOR: Ischemia in Women with Non-Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease

Approximately half of all women with symptomatic ischemia who undergo coronary angiography are found to have non-obstructive coronary artery disease ((ischemia and non-obstructive coronary...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

Percutaneous Tricuspid Valve Replacement with Lux-Valve

Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is a condition associated with poor quality of life, frequent hospitalizations due to heart failure, and increased mortality, even under optimal...

Transcatheter Pulmonary Valve Implantation with a Self-Expanding Valve: Outcomes at 3 Years

Pulmonary regurgitation (PR) is a common condition in patients who have undergone surgical repair of Tetralogy of Fallot or other pathologies involving the right...

Radial Patency in Coronary Procedures: Is Heparin Enough or Should We Aim for Distal Transradial Access?

Transradial access is the preferred route in most coronary procedures due to its proven reduction in mortality compared to transfemoral access. However, one of...