Clinical Events After Deferral of LAD Revascularization Following Physiological Coronary Assessment

BACKGROUND Physicians are not always comfortable deferring treatment of a stenosis in the left anterior descending (LAD) artery because of the perception that there is a high risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). The authors describe, using the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) trial, MACE rates when LAD lesions are deferred, guided by physiological assessment using fractional flow reserve (FFR) or the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to establish the safety of deferring treatment in the LAD using FFR or iFR within the DEFINE-FLAIR trial. METHODS MACE rates at 1 year were compared between groups (iFR and FFR) in patients whose physiological assessment led to LAD lesions being deferred. MACE was defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and unplanned revascularization at 1 year. Patients, and staff performing follow-up, were blinded to whether the decision was made with FFR or iFR. Outcomes were adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS A total of 872 patients had lesions deferred in the LAD (421 guided by FFR, 451 guided by iFR). The event rate with iFR was significantly lower than with FFR (2.44% vs. 5.26%; adjusted HR: 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22 to 0.95; p = 0.04). This was driven by significantly lower unplanned revascularization with iFR and numerically lower MI (unplanned revascularization: 2.22% iFR vs. 4.99% FFR; adjusted HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.93; p = 0.03; MI: 0.44% iFR vs. 2.14% FFR; adjusted HR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.07; p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS iFR-guided deferral appears to be safe for patients with LAD lesions. Patients in whom iFR-guided deferral was performed had statistically significantly lower event rates than those with FFR-guided deferral. (c) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Peer reviewe

Safety of the Deferral of Coronary Revascularization on the Basis of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements in Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients deferred from coronary revascularization on the basis of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements in stable angina pectoris (SAP) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS). BACKGROUND Assessment of coronary stenosis severity with pressure guidewires is recommended to determine the need for myocardial revascularization. METHODS The safety of deferral of coronary revascularization in the pooled per-protocol population (n = 4,486) of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) and iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome) randomized clinical trials was investigated. Patients were stratified according to revascularization decision making on the basis of iFR or FFR and to clinical presentation (SAP or ACS). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS Coronary revascularization was deferred in 2,130 patients. Deferral was performed in 1,117 patients (50%) in the iFR group and 1,013 patients (45%) in the FFR group (p <0.01). At 1 year, the MACE rate in the deferred population was similar between the iFR and FFR groups (4.12% vs. 4.05%; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 1.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 1.79; p = 0.60). A clinical presentation with ACS was associated with a higher MACE rate compared with SAP in deferred patients (5.91% vs. 3.64% in ACS and SAP, respectively; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 0.61 in favor of SAP; 95% confidence interval: 0.38 to 0.99; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS Overall, deferral of revascularization is equally safe with both iFR and FFR, with a low MACE rate of about 4%. Lesions were more frequently deferred when iFR was used to assess physiological significance. In deferred patients presenting with ACS, the event rate was significantly increased compared with SAP at 1 year. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation.Peer reviewe

Comparison of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) - First real world experience

Background: The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is a new adenosine-independent index of coronary stenosis severity. Most published data have been based on off-line analyses of pressure recordings in a core laboratory. We prospectively compared real-time iFR and fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements. Methods and results: iFR and FFR were measured in 151 coronary stenoses in 108 patients. Repeated iFR measurements were technically simple, showed excellent agreement [r(s)=0.99; p Conclusions: Real-time iFR measurements are easily performed, have excellent diagnostic performance and confirm available off-line core laboratory data. The excellent agreement between repeated iFR measurements demonstrates the reliability of single measurements. Combining iFR with FFR in a hybrid strategy enhances diagnostic accuracy, exposing fewer patients to adenosine. Overall, iFR is a promising method, but still requires prospective clinical endpoint trial evaluation. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved

Influence of hydrostatic pressure on intracoronary indices of stenosis severity in vivo

Background An influence of hydrostatic pressure on intracoronary indices of stenosis severity in vitro was recently reported. We sought to analyze the influence of hydrostatic pressure, caused by the height difference between the distal and proximal pressure sensor after guidewire positioning in the interrogated vessel, on intracoronary pressure measurements in vivo. Methods and results In 30 coronary stenoses, intracoronary pressure measurements were performed in supine, left, and right lateral patient position. Height differences between the distal and proximal pressure sensor were measured by blinded observers. Measurement results of the position with the highest ("high") and lowest height difference ("low") were compared. In group "high", all measured indices were higher: mean difference of fractional flow reserve (FFR) 0.045 (SD 0.033, 95% CI 0.033-0.057, p <0.0001), of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) 0.043 (SD 0.04, 95% CI 0.029-0.057, p <0.0001), and of resting Pd/Pa 0.037 (SD 0.034, 95% CI 0.025-0.049, p <0.0001). Addition of the physically expectable hydrostatic pressure to the distal coronary pressures of the control group abolished the differences: corrected Delta FFR -0.006 (SD 0.027, 95% CI -0.015 to 0.004, p = 0.26), corrected Delta Pd/Pa -0.008 (SD 0.03, 95% CI -0.019 to 0.003, p = 0.18). Adjustment for hydrostatic pressure of FFR values in a standard supine position increased all values in anterior vessels and decreased all values in posterior vessels. The mean changes of FFR due to adjustment were: LAD -0.048 (SD 0.016), CX 0.02 (SD 0.009), RCA 0.02 (SD 0.021). Dichotomous severity classification changed in 12.9% of stenoses. Conclusions The study demonstrates a relevant influence of hydrostatic pressure on intracoronary indices of stenosis severity in vivo, caused by the height differences between distal and proximal pressure sensor

ACCESO VASCULAR

RESUMEN: La instalación de accesos vasculares, tanto arteriales como venosos, a nivel periférico como más centrales, es una habilidad fundamental de un anestesiólogo; aunque no siempre se enseña de manera adecuada o no es parte de su formación esencial. Al igual que muchos procedimientos, en un nivel básico su aprendizaje puede ser simple, pero los daños acechan a los operadores inexpertos. Palabras clave: Acceso vascular, acceso venoso central, catéteres arteriales, anatomía, arterias, venas, complicacione

泌尿器科紀要 第47巻 (2001年) 総目次

Invasive physiologic indices such as fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) are used in clinical practice. Nevertheless, comparative prognostic outcomes of iFR-guided and FFR-guided treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes have not yet been fully investigated

Sex Differences in Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Revascularization Strategy

OBJECTIVES This study sought to evaluate sex differences in procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR)- and fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided revascularization strategies. BACKGROUND An iFR-guided strategy has shown a lower revascularization rate than an FFR-guided strategy, without differences in clinical outcomes. METHODS This is a post hoc analysis of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate stenosis to guide Revascularization) study, in which 601 women and 1,891 men were randomized to iFR- or FFR-guided strategy. The primary endpoint was 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. RESULTS Among the entire population, women had a lower number of functionally significant lesions per patient (0.31 +/- 0.51 vs. 0.43 +/- 0.59; p <0.001) and less frequently underwent revascularization than men (42.1% vs. 53.1%; p <0.001). There was no difference in mean iFR value according to sex (0.91 +/- 0.09 vs. 0.91 +/- 0.10; p = 0.442). However, the mean FFR value was lower in men than in women (0.83 +/- 0.09 vs. 0.85 +/- 0.10; p = 0.001). In men, an FFR-guided strategy was associated with a higher rate of revascularization than an iFR-guided strategy (57.1% vs. 49.3%; p = 0.001), but this difference was not observed in women (41.4% vs. 42.6%; p = 0.757). There was no difference in MACE rates between iFR- and FFR-guided strategies in both women (5.4% vs. 5.6%, adjusted hazard ratio: 1.10; 95% confidence interval: 0.50 to 2.43; p = 0.805) and men (6.6% vs. 7.0%, adjusted hazard ratio: 0.98; 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 1.46; p = 0.919). CONCLUSIONS An FFR-guided strategy was associated with a higher rate of revascularization than iFR-guided strategy in men, but not in women. However, iFR- and FFR-guided strategies showed comparable clinical outcomes, regardless of sex. (C) 2019 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.Peer reviewe