Background: Functional assessment of myocardial bridging (MB) remains clinically challenging because of the dynamic nature of the extravascular coronary compression with a certain degree of intraluminal coronary reduction. The aim of our study was to assess performance and diagnostic value of diastolic‐fractional flow reserve (d‐FFR) during dobutamine provocation versus conventional‐FFR during adenosine provocation with exercise‐induced myocardial ischemia as reference. Methods and Results: This prospective study includes 60 symptomatic patients (45 men, mean age 57±9 years) with MB on the left anterior descending artery and systolic compression ≥50% diameter stenosis. Patients were evaluated by exercise stress‐echocardiography test, and both conventional‐FFR and d‐FFR in the distal segment of left anterior descending artery during intravenous infusion of adenosine (140 μg/kg per minute) and dobutamine (10–50 μg/kg per minute), separately. Exercise–stress‐echocardiography test was positive for myocardial ischemia in 19/60 patients (32%). Conventional‐FFR during adenosine and peak dobutamine had similar values (0.84±0.04 versus 0.84±0.06, P =0.852), but d‐FFR during peak dobutamine was significantly lower than d‐FFR during adenosine (0.76±0.08 versus 0.79±0.08, P =0.018). Diastolic‐FFR during peak dobutamine was significantly lower in the exercise‐stress‐echocardiography test –positive group compared with the exercise‐ stress‐echocardiography test –negative group (0.70±0.07 versus 0.79±0.06, P <0.001), but not during adenosine (0.79±0.07 versus 0.78±0.09, P =0.613). Among physiological indices, d‐FFR during peak dobutamine was the only independent predictor of functionally significant MB (odds ratio, 0.870; 95% CI, 0.767–0.986, P =0.03). Receiver‐operating characteristics curve analysis identifies the optimal d‐FFR during peak dobutamine cut‐off ≤0.76 (area under curve, 0.927; 95% CI, 0.833–1.000; P <0.001) with a sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value of 95%, 95%, 90%, and 98%, respectively, for identifying MB associated with stress‐induced ischemia. Conclusions: Diastolic‐FFR, but not conventional‐FFR, during inotropic stimulation with high‐dose dobutamine, in comparison to vasodilatation with adenosine, provides more reliable functional significance of MB in relation to stress‐induced myocardial ischemia.

Nicorandil, as a selective potassium channel opener, has dual action including coronary and peripheral vasodilatation and cardioprotective effect through ischemic preconditioning. Considering those characteristics, nicorandil was suggested to reduce the degree of microvascular dysfunction. Thirty-two patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) were included in the study. Index of microvascular resistance (IMR) was measured in all patients immediatelly after pPCI before the after administration of Nicorandil. ST segment resolution was monitored before intervention and 60 min after terminating the procedure. Echocardiographic evaluation of myocardial function and transthoracic Doppler derived Coronary flow reserve (CFR) of infarct related artery (IRA) was performed during hospitalization and 3 months later. IMR was significantly lower after administration of Nicorandil (9.9 ± 3.7 vs. 14.1 ± 5.1, p < 0.001). There was significant difference in ST segment elevation before and after primary PCI with administration of Nicorandil (6.9 ± 3.7 mm vs. 1.6 ± 1.6 mm, p < 0.001). Transthoracic Doppler CFR measurement improved after 3 months (2.69 ± 0.38 vs. 2.92 ± 0.54, p = 0.021), as well as WMSI (1.14 ± 0.17 vs. 1.07 ± 0.09, p = 0.004). Intracoronary Nicorandil administration after primary PCI significantly decreases IMR, resulting in improved CFR and ventricular function in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI.

Background: Microvascular dysfunction might be a major determinant of clinical deterioration and outcome in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). However, long‐term prognostic value of transthoracic Doppler echocardiography (TDE) coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) on clinical outcome is uncertain in HCM patients. Therefore, the aim of our study was to assess long‐term prognostic value of CFVR on clinical outcome in HCM population. Methods and Results: We prospectively included 150 HCM patients (82 women; mean age 48±15 years). Patients’ clinical characteristics, echocardiographic and CFVR findings (both for left anterior descending [LAD] and posterior descending artery [PD]), were assessed in all patients. The primary outcome was a composite of: HCM related death, heart failure requiring hospitalization, sustained ventricular tachycardia and ischemic stroke. Patients were stratified into 2 subgroups depending on CFVR LAD value: Group 1 (CFVR LAD>2, [n=87]) and Group 2 (CFVR LAD≤2, [n=63]). During a median follow‐up of 88 months, 41/150 (27.3%) patients had adverse cardiac events. In Group 1, there were 8/87 (9.2%), whereas in Group 2 there were 33/63 (52.4%, P <0.001 vs. Group 1) adverse cardiac events. By Kaplan‐Meier analysis, patients with preserved CFVR LAD had significantly higher cumulative event‐free survival rate compared to patients with impaired CFVR LAD (96.4% and 90.9% versus 66.9% and 40.0%, at 5 and 8 years, respectively: log‐rank 37.2, P <0.001). Multivariable analysis identified only CFVR LAD≤2 as an independent predictor for adverse cardiac outcome (HR 6.54; 95% CI 2.83–16.30, P <0.001), while CFVR PD was not significantly associated with outcome. Conclusions: In patients with HCM, impaired CFVR LAD (≤2) is a strong, independent predictor of adverse cardiac outcome. When the aim of testing is HCM risk stratification and CFVR LAD data are available, the evaluation of CFVR PD is redundant.

Assessment of the functional significance of coronary artery stenosis using invasive measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) or non-hyperemic indices has been shown to be safe and effective in making clinical decisions on whether to perform percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Despite strong evidence from clinical trials, utilization of these techniques is still relatively low worldwide. This may be to some extent attributed to factors that are inherent to invasive measurements like prolongation of the procedure, side effects of drugs that induce hyperemia, additional steps that the operator should perform, the possibility to damage the vessel with the wire, and additional costs. During the last few years, there was a growing interest in the non-invasive assessment of coronary artery lesions, which may provide interventionalist with important physiological information regarding lesion severity and overcome some of the limitations. Several dedicated software solutions are available on the market that could provide an estimation of FFR using 3D reconstruction of the interrogated vessel derived from two separated angiographic projections taken during diagnostic coronary angiography. Furthermore, some of them use data about aortic pressure and frame count to more accurately calculate pressure drop (and FFR). The ideal non-invasive system should be integrated into the workflow of the cath lab and performed online (during the diagnostic procedure), thereby not prolonging procedural time significantly, and giving the operator additional information like vessel size, lesion length, and possible post-PCI FFR value. Following the development of these technologies, they were all evaluated in clinical trials where good correlation and agreement with invasive FFR (considered the gold standard) were demonstrated. Currently, only one trial (FAVOR III China) with clinical outcomes was completed and demonstrated that QFR-guided PCI may provide better results at 1-year follow-up as compared to the angiography-guided approach. We are awaiting the results of a few other trials with clinical outcomes that test the performance of these indices in guiding PCI against either FFR or angiography-based approach, in various clinical settings. Herein we will present an overview of the currently available data, a critical review of the major clinical trials, and further directions of development for the five most widely available non-invasive indices: QFR, vFFR, FFRangio, caFFR, and AccuFFRangio.

Coronary atherosclerosis in patients with diabetes mellitus is the most significant pathophysiological mechanism responsible for ischemic heart disease. Atherosclerosis in diabetes is premature, more diffuse, and more progressive, and it affects more coronary blood vessels compared to non-diabetics. Atherosclerosis begins with endothelial dysfunction, continues with the formation of fatty streaks in the intima of coronary arteries, and ends with the appearance of an atherosclerotic plaque that expands centrifugally and remodels the coronary artery. If the atherosclerotic plaque is injured, a thrombus forms at the site of the damage, which can lead to vessel occlusion and potentially fatal consequences. Diabetes mellitus and atherosclerosis are connected through several pathological pathways. Among the most significant factors that lead to atherosclerosis in diabetics are hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, oxidative stress, dyslipidemia, and chronic inflammation. Chronic inflammation is currently considered one of the most important factors in the development of atherosclerosis. However, to date, no adequate anti-inflammatory therapeutic measures have been found to prevent the progression of the atherosclerotic process, and they remain a subject of ongoing research. In this review, we summarize the most significant pathophysiological mechanisms that link atherosclerosis and diabetes mellitus.