Assessment of stent edge dissections by fractional flow reserve

• Functional assessment for edge dissection has not been studied yet.
• We prospectively investigated the relationship between FFR and dissection.
• FFR correlates well with an angiographic type of edge dissection.
• FFR-guided management might be safe and effective for mild dissections.

BackgroundsEdge dissections after intervention have been studied with imaging techniques, however, functional assessment has not been studied yet. We investigated the relationship between fractional flow reserve (FFR) and the angiographic type of stent edge dissections and tried to assess the use of FFR-guided management for edge dissection.Methods51 edge dissections assessed by FFR were included in this prospective observational study. FFR was measured for each type of edge dissection and compared with quantitative coronary angiographic findings. Clinical outcomes were evaluated based on FFR measurements.ResultsEdge dissections were classified as type A (47.1%; 24/51), type B (41.2%; 21/51), type C (2.0%; 1/51) and type D (9.8%; 5/51). Mean FFR in type A dissection was 0.87 ± 0.09, in type B 0.86 ± 0.07, in type C 0.72 and in type D 0.57 ± 0.08. All type C and D dissections (6/51) had FFR ≤ 0.8 and were treated with additional stents. Among the 45 type A and B dissections, 8 had a FFR ≤ 0.8 (17.8%), and 50% received additional stenting. All dissections with FFR > 0.8 were left untreated except one long dissection case. There was no death, myocardial infarction or target lesion revascularization during hospitalization or the follow-up period (median 152 days; IQR 42–352 days).ConclusionsFFR correlates well with an angiographic type of edge dissection. Angiographic findings are sufficient for deciding the treatment of severe dissections such as types C and D, while FFR-guided management may be safe and effective for mild edge dissections such as types A and B.