4.Discordance Between Angiographic Assessment and Fractional Flow Reserve or Intravascular Ultrasound in Intermediate Coronary Lesions: A Post-hoc Analysis of the FLAVOUR Trial
Jung-Hee LEE ; Sung Gyun AHN ; Ho Sung JEON ; Jun-Won LEE ; Young Jin YOUN ; Jinlong ZHANG ; Xinyang HU ; Jian’an WANG ; Joo Myung LEE ; Joo-Yong HAHN ; Chang-Wook NAM ; Joon-Hyung DOH ; Bong-Ki LEE ; Weon KIM ; Jinyu HUANG ; Fan JIANG ; Hao ZHOU ; Peng CHEN ; Lijiang TANG ; Wenbing JIANG ; Xiaomin CHEN ; Wenming HE ; Myeong-Ho YOON ; Seung-Jea TAHK ; Ung KIM ; You-Jeong KI ; Eun-Seok SHIN ; Doyeon HWANG ; Jeehoon KANG ; Hyo-Soo KIM ; Bon-Kwon KOO
Korean Circulation Journal 2024;54(8):485-496
Background and Objectives:
Angiographic assessment of coronary stenosis severity using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) is often inconsistent with that based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). We investigated the incidence of discrepancies between QCA and FFR or IVUS, and the outcomes of FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies in discordant coronary lesions.
Methods:
This study was a post-hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR study. We used a QCA-derived diameter stenosis (DS) of 60% or greater, the highest tertile, to classify coronary lesions as concordant or discordant with FFR or IVUS criteria for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) was defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months.
Results:
The discordance rate between QCA and FFR or IVUS was 30.2% (n=551). The QCAFFR discordance rate was numerically lower than the QCA-IVUS discordance rate (28.2% vs. 32.4%, p=0.050). In 200 patients with ≥60% DS, PCI was deferred according to negative FFR (n=141) and negative IVUS (n=59) (15.3% vs. 6.5%, p<0.001). The POCO incidence was comparable between the FFR- and IVUS-guided deferral strategies (5.9% vs. 3.4%, p=0.479).Conversely, 351 patients with DS <60% underwent PCI according to positive FFR (n=118) and positive IVUS (n=233) (12.8% vs. 25.9%, p<0.001). FFR- and IVUS-guided PCI did not differ in the incidence of POCO (9.5% vs. 6.5%, p=0.294).
Conclusions
The proportion of QCA-FFR or IVUS discordance was approximately one third for intermediate coronary lesions. FFR- or IVUS-guided strategies for these lesions were comparable with respect to POCO at 24 months.
6.Discordance Between Angiographic Assessment and Fractional Flow Reserve or Intravascular Ultrasound in Intermediate Coronary Lesions: A Post-hoc Analysis of the FLAVOUR Trial
Jung-Hee LEE ; Sung Gyun AHN ; Ho Sung JEON ; Jun-Won LEE ; Young Jin YOUN ; Jinlong ZHANG ; Xinyang HU ; Jian’an WANG ; Joo Myung LEE ; Joo-Yong HAHN ; Chang-Wook NAM ; Joon-Hyung DOH ; Bong-Ki LEE ; Weon KIM ; Jinyu HUANG ; Fan JIANG ; Hao ZHOU ; Peng CHEN ; Lijiang TANG ; Wenbing JIANG ; Xiaomin CHEN ; Wenming HE ; Myeong-Ho YOON ; Seung-Jea TAHK ; Ung KIM ; You-Jeong KI ; Eun-Seok SHIN ; Doyeon HWANG ; Jeehoon KANG ; Hyo-Soo KIM ; Bon-Kwon KOO
Korean Circulation Journal 2024;54(8):485-496
Background and Objectives:
Angiographic assessment of coronary stenosis severity using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) is often inconsistent with that based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). We investigated the incidence of discrepancies between QCA and FFR or IVUS, and the outcomes of FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies in discordant coronary lesions.
Methods:
This study was a post-hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR study. We used a QCA-derived diameter stenosis (DS) of 60% or greater, the highest tertile, to classify coronary lesions as concordant or discordant with FFR or IVUS criteria for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) was defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months.
Results:
The discordance rate between QCA and FFR or IVUS was 30.2% (n=551). The QCAFFR discordance rate was numerically lower than the QCA-IVUS discordance rate (28.2% vs. 32.4%, p=0.050). In 200 patients with ≥60% DS, PCI was deferred according to negative FFR (n=141) and negative IVUS (n=59) (15.3% vs. 6.5%, p<0.001). The POCO incidence was comparable between the FFR- and IVUS-guided deferral strategies (5.9% vs. 3.4%, p=0.479).Conversely, 351 patients with DS <60% underwent PCI according to positive FFR (n=118) and positive IVUS (n=233) (12.8% vs. 25.9%, p<0.001). FFR- and IVUS-guided PCI did not differ in the incidence of POCO (9.5% vs. 6.5%, p=0.294).
Conclusions
The proportion of QCA-FFR or IVUS discordance was approximately one third for intermediate coronary lesions. FFR- or IVUS-guided strategies for these lesions were comparable with respect to POCO at 24 months.
7.Discordance Between Angiographic Assessment and Fractional Flow Reserve or Intravascular Ultrasound in Intermediate Coronary Lesions: A Post-hoc Analysis of the FLAVOUR Trial
Jung-Hee LEE ; Sung Gyun AHN ; Ho Sung JEON ; Jun-Won LEE ; Young Jin YOUN ; Jinlong ZHANG ; Xinyang HU ; Jian’an WANG ; Joo Myung LEE ; Joo-Yong HAHN ; Chang-Wook NAM ; Joon-Hyung DOH ; Bong-Ki LEE ; Weon KIM ; Jinyu HUANG ; Fan JIANG ; Hao ZHOU ; Peng CHEN ; Lijiang TANG ; Wenbing JIANG ; Xiaomin CHEN ; Wenming HE ; Myeong-Ho YOON ; Seung-Jea TAHK ; Ung KIM ; You-Jeong KI ; Eun-Seok SHIN ; Doyeon HWANG ; Jeehoon KANG ; Hyo-Soo KIM ; Bon-Kwon KOO
Korean Circulation Journal 2024;54(8):485-496
Background and Objectives:
Angiographic assessment of coronary stenosis severity using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) is often inconsistent with that based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). We investigated the incidence of discrepancies between QCA and FFR or IVUS, and the outcomes of FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies in discordant coronary lesions.
Methods:
This study was a post-hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR study. We used a QCA-derived diameter stenosis (DS) of 60% or greater, the highest tertile, to classify coronary lesions as concordant or discordant with FFR or IVUS criteria for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) was defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months.
Results:
The discordance rate between QCA and FFR or IVUS was 30.2% (n=551). The QCAFFR discordance rate was numerically lower than the QCA-IVUS discordance rate (28.2% vs. 32.4%, p=0.050). In 200 patients with ≥60% DS, PCI was deferred according to negative FFR (n=141) and negative IVUS (n=59) (15.3% vs. 6.5%, p<0.001). The POCO incidence was comparable between the FFR- and IVUS-guided deferral strategies (5.9% vs. 3.4%, p=0.479).Conversely, 351 patients with DS <60% underwent PCI according to positive FFR (n=118) and positive IVUS (n=233) (12.8% vs. 25.9%, p<0.001). FFR- and IVUS-guided PCI did not differ in the incidence of POCO (9.5% vs. 6.5%, p=0.294).
Conclusions
The proportion of QCA-FFR or IVUS discordance was approximately one third for intermediate coronary lesions. FFR- or IVUS-guided strategies for these lesions were comparable with respect to POCO at 24 months.
9.Guidelines for Packaging, Transport, and Storage of Source Cells for Organoids
Sungin LEE ; Dayeon KWON ; Han Byeol LEE ; Sooyeon JEON ; Chihye PARK ; Tae Sung KIM ; Jin Hee LEE ; Il Ung OH ; Sun-Ju AHN
International Journal of Stem Cells 2024;17(2):113-119
This report presents guidelines for the systematic management of packaging, storage, transportation, and traceability of source cells used for organoid research. Given the important role of source cells in organoid studies, it is important to ensure the preservation of their quality and integrity throughout transportation and distribution processes. The proposed guidelines, therefore, call for a cohesive strategy through these stages to minimize the risks of contamination, deterioration, and loss–threats that significantly compromise the safety, efficacy, and efficiency of source cells. Central to these guidelines is the quality control measures that include roles and responsibilities across the entire supply chain, with recommendations specific to packaging materials, transportation facilities, and storage management. Furthermore, the need for an integrated management system is emphasized, spanning from source cell collection to the final application. This system is crucial for maintaining the traceability and accountability of source cells, facilitating the sharing, distribution, and utilization on a global scale, and supporting to advance organoid research and development.
10.Essential Guidelines for Manufacturing and Application of Organoids
Sun-Ju AHN ; Sungin LEE ; Dayeon KWON ; Sejeong OH ; Chihye PARK ; Sooyeon JEON ; Jin Hee LEE ; Tae Sung KIM ; Il Ung OH
International Journal of Stem Cells 2024;17(2):102-112
An organoid is a self-organized three-dimensional structure derived from stem cells that mimics the structure, cell composition, and functional characteristics of specific organs and tissues and is used for evaluating the safety and effectiveness of drugs and the toxicity of industrial chemicals. Organoid technology is a new methodology that could replace testing on animals testing and accelerate development of precision and regenerative medicine. However, large variations in production can occur between laboratories with low reproducibility of the production process and no internationally agreed standards for quality evaluation factors at endpoints. To overcome these barriers that hinder the regulatory acceptance and commercialization of organoids, Korea established the Organoid Standards Initiative in September 2023 with various stakeholders, including industry, academia, regulatory agencies, and standard development experts, through public and private partnerships. This developed general guidelines for organoid manufacturing and quality evaluation and for quality evaluation guidelines for organoid-specific manufacturing for the liver, intestines, and heart through extensive evidence analysis and consensus among experts. This report is based on the common standard guideline v1.0, which is a general organoid manufacturing and quality evaluation to promote the practical use of organoids. This guideline does not focus on specific organoids or specific contexts of use but provides guidance to organoid makers and users on materials, procedures, and essential quality assessment methods at end points that are essential for organoid production applicable at the current technology level.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail