夏茏 综述 蔡琳 审校
(成都市三医院 重庆医科大学第二临床学院 成都市心血管病研究所,四川 成都 610031)
冠状动脉粥样硬化性心脏病是临床十分常见,病死率居高不下的心血管疾病之一,人们对冠状动脉的探索至今仍无穷无尽。冠状动脉造影检查被认为是评估冠状动脉严重程度的“金标准”,但仅仅依赖冠状动脉造影结果来制定血运重建是不准确的[1],对冠状动脉功能性的评估,血流储备分数(fractional flow reserve,FFR)已被多项研究证实为公认的指标[2]。
所谓血流储备分数FFR 是指冠状动脉达到最大充血状态时狭窄远端心肌血流量和该冠状动脉无狭窄病变时理论获得的最大血流量之比。通过对比两种状态的血流量,我们可以从中评估冠状动脉狭窄是否具有功能性的意义,通俗的说,冠状动脉虽有狭窄(这里所谓的狭窄是指临界病变,即冠状动脉造影显示血管狭窄70%~75%),但狭窄的程度是否会影响心肌的灌注,是否需要植入支架进行治疗,都可以通过计算FFR 来决定。FFR 指导下的经皮冠状动脉介入术(percutaneous coronary intervention,PCI),由于减少了后期的冠状动脉事件,患者的经济负担也明显减轻[3]。
那如何计算FFR 呢,我们只需要获取两个血流量的数值即可,即无狭窄时的最大血流量Qn(normal)与狭窄远端病变的最大血流量Qs(stenosis);FFR =Qs/Qn。根据欧姆定律,血流量等于跨心肌压力差P 与跨心肌阻力R 之比,即Q=P/R。正常的血管,跨心肌压力差P 等于冠状动脉开口的压力,即主动脉的压力Pa,而冠状动脉充分扩张情况下,跨心肌阻力达到最小且Rs ≈Rn。因此,公式可以简化为FFR =Qs/Qn=(Ps/Rs)÷(Pn/Rn)≈Ps/Pa。只要我们测量出冠状动脉狭窄远端的压力,与主动脉的压力对比就可得出FFR 比值。
FFR 数值的大小直接反映了冠状动脉的狭窄病变对血管功能的影响,Johnson 等[4]对多项FFR 研究进行汇总分析得出结论,FFR 与预后有连续且独立的相关性,病变的FFR 值越低,从血运重建中的绝对获益越大。例如说明,当FFR 为0.50 时,即血流通过该狭窄病变,最大血流量减少到正常的50%,若对该狭窄病变行介入术治疗,使FFR 上升至0.90~0.99,则意味着将血管最大血流量提升至正常的90%~99%,从而改善患者狭窄部位远端心肌的供血。在不同患者、不同动脉中FFR 理论上的正常值均为1,且不受血压、心率、血流动力学的影响。多项研究[5-6]表明,当狭窄的FFR ≤0.75 时,支架置入术是合理的,而当狭窄的FFR >0.80 时,可以推迟介入术治疗,单纯药物治疗即可。当FFR 在0.76~0.80 之间时,应结合患者的症状、其他检查结果等情况综合判断。所以准确地计算FFR,对于我们如何选择下一步的治疗方法至关重要,根据计算公式,我们可以看出,对于狭窄血管的病变远端,充分的血管扩张十分重要。如何充分扩张血管,我们将重点介绍。
FFR 是通过一个压力导管,在主动脉测得压力Pa后,通过冠状动脉狭窄病变,进入远端,注射血管扩张剂后测得远端Ps 压力,计算Ps/Pa 即可。要想提高FFR 计算的准确性,最大程度地扩张冠状动脉血管是保障,临床上我们常用的血管扩张剂有腺苷、三磷酸腺苷、罂粟碱和硝普钠(对四种常用药物对比分析见表1)。
表1 四种血管扩张剂的比较
如何提高FFR 的准确性,除了我们在操作上要认真、仔细、小心、谨慎,充分扩张血管最为重要,根据每个患者的个体差异,基本疾病,选定合适的扩张剂,合适的剂量,才能更好地提高检测FFR 的准确性,此篇文章仅从临床上常见的、常用的几种血管扩张剂为重点展开讨论,意义在于帮助大家更清楚地了解各个药物的整体疗效,希望对每位心血管医生、每位介入医生有所帮助。
[1]Lotfi A,Jeremias A,Fearon WF,et al.Expert consensus statement on the use of fractional flow reserve,intravascular ultrasound,and optical coherence tomography:a consensus statement of the society of cardiovascular angiography and interventions[J].Catheter Cardiovasc Interv,2014,83:509-518.
[2]Fearon WF,Shilane D,Pijls NH,et al.Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable coronary artery disease and abnormal fractional flow reserve[J].Circulation,2013,128(12):1335-1340.
[3]de Bruyne B,Fearon WF,Pijls NH,et al.Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease[J].N Eng J Med,2014,371(13):1208-1217.
[4]Johnson NP,Tóth GG,Lai D,et al.Prognostic value of fractional flow reserve:linking physiologic severity to clinical outcomes[J].J Am Coll Cardiol,2014,64(16):1641-1654.
[5]Kern MJ,Lerman A,Bech JW,et al.Physiological assessment of coronary artery disease in the cardiac catheterization laboratory:a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Committee on Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Catheterization,Council on Clinical Cardiology[J].Circulation,2006,114:1321.
[6]Kern MJ.Coronary physiology revisited:practical insights from the cardiac catheterization laboratory[J].Circulation,2000,101(21):1344-1351.
[7]Belhassen B,Pelleg A.Electrophysiologic effects of adenosine triphosphate and adenosine on the mammalian heart:clinical and experimental aspects[J].J Am Coll Cardiol,1984,4:414-424.
[8]de Bruyne B,Pijls NH,Barbato E,et al.Intracoronary and intravenous adenosine 5-triphosphate,adenosine,papaverin,and contrast medium to assess fractional flow reserve in humans[J].Circulation,2003,107:1877-1883.
[9]Nakayama M,Saito A,Kitazawa H,et al.Papaverine-inducded polymorphic ventricular tachycardia in relation to QTU and T-U waves in four cases[J].Intern Med,2012,51:351-356.
[10]Sandhu PS,Kaul U,Gupta RK,et al.Fractional flow reserve:intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine induced maximal coronary hyperemia[J].Indian Heart J,2013,65:147-151.
[11]Leone AM,Porto I,de Caterina AR,et al.Maximal hyperemia in the assessment of fractional flow reserve:intracoronary adenosine versus intracoronary sodium nitroprusside versus intravenous adenosine:the NASCI(nitroprussiato versus adenosine nelle stenosi coronariche intermedie)study[J].JACC Cardiovasc Interv,2012,5:402-408.
[12]de Luca G,Venegoni L,Iorio S,et al.Effects of increasing doses of intracoronary adenosine on the assessment of fractional flow reserve[J].JACC Cardiovasc Interv,2011,4:1079-1084.
[13]Yoon MH,Tahk SJ,Yang HM,et al.Comparison of the intracoronary continuous infusion method using a microcatheter and the intravenous continuous adenosine infusion method for inducing maximal hyperemia for fractional flow reserve measurement[J].Am Heart J,2009,157:1050-1056.
[14]Watanabe K,Sekiya M,Ikeda S,et al.Comparison of adenosine triphosphate and dipyridamole in diagnosis by thallium-201 myocardial scintigraphy[J].J Nucl Med,1997,38:577-581.
[15]McGeoch RJ,Oldroyd KG.Pharmacological options for inducing maximal hyperaemia during studies of coronary physiology[J].Catheter Cardiovasc Interv,2008,71:198-204.
[16]Yamada H,Azuma A,Hirasaki S,et al.Intracoronary adenosine 5′-triphosphate as an alternative to papaverine for measuring coronary flow reserve[J].Am J Cardiol,1994,74:940-941.
[17]Rudzinski W,Waller AH,Rusovici A,et al.Comparison of efficacy and safety of intracoronary sodium nitroprusside and intravenous adenosine for assessing fractional flow reserve[J].Catheter Cardiovasc Interv,2013,81:540-544.