cFFR provides diagnostic performance superior to that of Pd/Pa or iFR for predicting FFR. For clinical scenarios or health care systems in which adenosine is contraindicated or prohibitively expensive, cFFR offers a universal technique to simplify invasive coronary physiological assessments. Yet FFR remains the reference standard for diagnostic certainty as even cFFR reached only ∼85% agreement.

Hyperhomocysteinemia has been considered as a risk factor for systemic atherosclerosis, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and stroke and many epidemiologic and case-controlled studies have demonstrated its association with these complications. In addition, treatment of hyperhomocysteinemia with folic acid ± B vitamins prevents the development of atherosclerosis, CVD and strokes. However, subsequent prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trials have not shown an association of high homocysteine levels or their lowering with treatment with the incidence of atherosclerosis, CVD or strokes, due possibly, to the fortification of flower with folic acid. Therefore, at present, there is a controversy regarding the significance of homocysteine as a risk factor for CVD and stroke and whether patients should be routinely screened for homocysteine. Areas covered: For these reasons, a focused Medline search of the English language literature was conducted between 2010 and 2017 using the terms, homocysteine, risk factor, atherosclerosis, cardiovascular disease, stroke, treatment, and 38 papers with pertinent information were selected. Expert commentary: The review of data disclosed that there is a great controversy regarding the significance of homocysteine as a risk factor for CVD and stroke. The data from these papers together with collateral literature will be discussed in this mini review.

The authors investigated the contrast enhancement characteristics of the coronary artery stent lumen to assess patency and then evaluated the accuracy of computed tomographic (CT) measurement of the in-stent luminal diameter. Nineteen patients (16 men and three women; mean age, 58.7 years) with 26 stents underwent cardiac-gated CT angiography with a 16-detector row scanner 1-3 weeks after stent placement. CT images depicted the lumina of 20 stents in 14 patients. CT attenuation measured in the treated lumen was higher than, and correlated highly (r >/= 0.87) with, attenuation in the proximal and distal untreated lumen. Estimated values for in-stent luminal diameter were lower with CT than with conventional angiography (P <.001), and the mean error (16.1%) that resulted from estimation based on sharp-kernel CT images was significantly smaller than that (27.3%) from estimation based on medium-smooth-kernel CT images (P <.001). Visualization of the in-stent lumen at CT angiography with a 16-detector row scanner allows assessment of coronary artery stent patency on the basis of measured contrast enhancement.

No abstract

Objectives To identify clinical, angiographic and hemodynamic predictors of discordance between instantaneous wave‐free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR). Background The iFR was found to be non‐inferior to the gold‐standard FFR for guiding coronary revascularization, although it is discordant with FFR in 20% of cases. A better understanding of the causes of discordance may enhance application of these indices. Methods Both FFR and iFR were measured in the prospective multicenter CONTRAST study. Clinical, angiographic and hemodynamic variables were compared between patients with concordant values of FFR and iFR (cutoff ≤0.80 and ≤0.89, respectively). Results Out of the 587 patients included, in 466 patients (79.4%) FFR and iFR agreed: both negative, n = 244 (41.6%), or positive, n = 222 (37.8%). Compared with FFR, iFR was negative discordant (FFR+/iFR‐) in 69 (11.8%) patients and positive discordant (FFR‐/iFR+) in 52 (8.9%) patients. On multivariate regression, stenosis location (left main or proximal left anterior descending) (OR: 3.30[1.68;6.47]), more severe stenosis (OR: 1.77[1.35;2.30]), younger age (OR: 0.93[0.90;0.97]), and slower heart rate (OR: 0.59[0.42;0.75]) were predictors of a negative discordant iFR. Absence of a beta‐blocker (OR: 0.41[0.22;0.78]), older age (OR: 1.04[1.00;1.07]), and less severe stenosis (OR: 0.69[0.53;0.89]) were predictors of a positive discordant iFR. Conclusions During iFR acquisition, stenosis location, stenosis degree, heart rate, age and use of beta blockers influence concordance with FFR and should be taken into account when interpreting iFR.