Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio for the Assessment of Intermediate Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: Correlations With Fractional Flow Reserve/Intravascular Ultrasound and Prognostic Implications: The iLITRO-EPIC07 Study

Background: There is little information available on agreement between fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) in left main coronary artery (LMCA) intermediate stenosis. Besides, several meta-analyses support the use of FFR to guide LMCA revascularization, but limited information is available on iFR in this setting. Our aims were to establish the concordance between FFR and iFR in intermediate LMCA lesions, to evaluate with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in cases of FFR/iFR discordance, and to prospectively validate the safety of deferring revascularization based on a hybrid decision-making strategy combining iFR and IVUS. Methods: Prospective, observational, multicenter registry with 300 consecutive patients with intermediate LMCA stenosis who underwent FFR and iFR and, in case of discordance, IVUS and minimal lumen area measurements. Primary clinical end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, LMCA lesion-related nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned LMCA revascularization. Results: FFR and iFR had an agreement of 80% (both positive in 67 and both negative in 167 patients); in case of disagreement (31 FFR+/iFR- and 29 FFR-/iFR+) minimal lumen area was & GE;6 mm(2) in 8.7% of patients with FFR+ and 14.6% with iFR+. Among the 300 patients, 105 (35%) underwent revascularization and 181 (60%) were deferred according to iFR and IVUS. At a median follow-up of 20 months, major adverse cardiac events incidence was 8.3% in the defer group and 13.3% in the revascularization group (hazard ratio, 0.71 [95% CI 0.30-1.72]; P=0.45). Conclusions: In patients with intermediate LMCA stenosis, a physiology-guided treatment decision is feasible either with FFR or iFR with moderate concordance between both indices. In case of disagreement, the use of IVUS may be useful to indicate revascularization. Deferral of revascularization based on iFR appears to be safe in terms of major adverse cardiac events

Amphilimus- vs. zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease: the SUGAR trial

Aim: Patients with diabetes mellitus are at high risk of adverse events after percutaneous revascularization, with no differences in outcomes between most contemporary drug-eluting stents. The Cre8 EVO stent releases a formulation of sirolimus with an amphiphilic carrier from laser-dug wells, and has shown clinical benefits in diabetes. We aimed to compare Cre8 EVO stents to Resolute Onyx stents (a contemporary polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stent) in patients with diabetes. Methods and results: We did an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded trial at 23 sites in Spain. Eligible patients had diabetes and required percutaneous coronary intervention. A total of 1175 patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive Cre8 EVO or Resolute Onyx stents. The primary endpoint was target-lesion failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization at 1-year follow-up. The trial had a non-inferiority design with a 4% margin for the primary endpoint. A superiority analysis was planned if non-inferiority was confirmed. There were 106 primary events, 42 (7.2%) in the Cre8 EVO group and 64 (10.9%) in the Resolute Onyx group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.96; pnon-inferiority <0.001; psuperiority = 0.030]. Among the secondary endpoints, Cre8 EVO stents had significantly lower rate than Resolute Onyx stents of target-vessel failure (7.5% vs 11.1%, HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.99; p = 0.042). Probable or definite stent thrombosis and all-cause death were not significantly different between groups. Conclusions: In patients with diabetes, Cre8 EVO stents were non-inferior to Resolute Onyx stents with regard to target-lesion failure composite outcome. An exploratory analysis for superiority at 1 year suggests that the Cre8 EVO stents might be superior to Resolute Onyx stents with regard to the same outcome

Rationale and design of the Concordance study between FFR and iFR for the assessment of lesions in the left main coronary artery. The ILITRO-EPIC-07 Trial

Introduction and objectives: Patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis have been excluded from the trials that support the non-inferiority of the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) compared to the fractional flow reserve (FFR) in the decision-making process of coronary revascularization. This study proposes to prospectively assess the concordance between the two indices in LMCA lesions and to validate the iFR cut-off value of 0.89 for clinical use. Methods: National, prospective, and observational multicenter registry of 300 consecutive patients with intermediate lesions in the LMCA (angiographic stenosis, 25% to 60%. A pressure gudiewire study and determination of the RFF and the iFR will be performed: in the event of a negative concordant result (FFR > 0.80/iFR > 0.89), no treatment will be performed; in case of a positive concordant result (FFR 0.80/iFR 0.89), an intravascular echocardiography will be performed and revascularization will be delayed if the minimum lumen area is > 6 mm(2). The primary clinical endpoint will be a composite of cardiovascular death, LMCA lesion-related non-fatal infarction or need for revascularization of the LMCA lesion at 12 months. Conclusions: Confirm that an iFR-guided decision-making process in patients with intermediate LMCA stenosis is clinically safe and would have a significant clinical impact. Also, justify its systematic use when prescribing treatment in these potentially high-risk patients

Amphilimus- vs. zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease: the SUGAR trial.

AIM: Patients with diabetes mellitus are at high risk of adverse events after percutaneous revascularization, with no differences in outcomes between most contemporary drug-eluting stents. The Cre8 EVO stent releases a formulation of sirolimus with an amphiphilic carrier from laser-dug wells, and has shown clinical benefits in diabetes. We aimed to compare Cre8 EVO stents to Resolute Onyx stents (a contemporary polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stent) in patients with diabetes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We did an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded trial at 23 sites in Spain. Eligible patients had diabetes and required percutaneous coronary intervention. A total of 1175 patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive Cre8 EVO or Resolute Onyx stents. The primary endpoint was target-lesion failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization at 1-year follow-up. The trial had a non-inferiority design with a 4% margin for the primary endpoint. A superiority analysis was planned if non-inferiority was confirmed. There were 106 primary events, 42 (7.2%) in the Cre8 EVO group and 64 (10.9%) in the Resolute Onyx group [hazard ratio (HR): 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44-0.96; Pnon-inferiority < 0.001; Psuperiority = 0.030]. Among the secondary endpoints, Cre8 EVO stents had significantly lower rate than Resolute Onyx stents of target-vessel failure (7.5% vs. 11.1%, HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.46-0.99; P = 0.042). Probable or definite stent thrombosis and all-cause death were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with diabetes, Cre8 EVO stents were non-inferior to Resolute Onyx stents with regard to target-lesion failure composite outcome. An exploratory analysis for superiority at 1 year suggests that the Cre8 EVO stents might be superior to Resolute Onyx stents with regard to the same outcome. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03321032

Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio for the Assessment of Intermediate Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: Correlations With Fractional Flow Reserve/Intravascular Ultrasound and Prognostic Implications: The iLITRO-EPIC07 Study

Background: There is little information available on agreement between fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) in left main coronary artery (LMCA) intermediate stenosis. Besides, several meta-analyses support the use of FFR to guide LMCA revascularization, but limited information is available on iFR in this setting. Our aims were to establish the concordance between FFR and iFR in intermediate LMCA lesions, to evaluate with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in cases of FFR/iFR discordance, and to prospectively validate the safety of deferring revascularization based on a hybrid decision-making strategy combining iFR and IVUS. Methods: Prospective, observational, multicenter registry with 300 consecutive patients with intermediate LMCA stenosis who underwent FFR and iFR and, in case of discordance, IVUS and minimal lumen area measurements. Primary clinical end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, LMCA lesion-related nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned LMCA revascularization. Results: FFR and iFR had an agreement of 80% (both positive in 67 and both negative in 167 patients); in case of disagreement (31 FFR+/iFR- and 29 FFR-/iFR+) minimal lumen area was ?6 mm2 in 8.7% of patients with FFR+ and 14.6% with iFR+. Among the 300 patients, 105 (35%) underwent revascularization and 181 (60%) were deferred according to iFR and IVUS. At a median follow-up of 20 months, major adverse cardiac events incidence was 8.3% in the defer group and 13.3% in the revascularization group (hazard ratio, 0.71 [95% CI 0.30-1.72]; P=0.45). Conclusions: In patients with intermediate LMCA stenosis, a physiology-guided treatment decision is feasible either with FFR or iFR with moderate concordance between both indices. In case of disagreement, the use of IVUS may be useful to indicate revascularization. Deferral of revascularization based on iFR appears to be safe in terms of major adverse cardiac events

Justificación y diseño del estudio Concordancia entre RFF e iFR en lesiones del tronco común.: Estudio iLITRO-EPIC-07

Introduction and objectives: Patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis have been excluded from the trials that support the non-inferiority of the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) compared to the fractional flow reserve (FFR) in the decision-making process of coronary revascularization. This study proposes to prospectively assess the concordance between the two indices in LMCA lesions and to validate the iFR cut-off value of 0.89 for clinical use. Methods: National, prospective, and observational multicenter registry of 300 consecutive patients with intermediate lesions in the LMCA (angiographic stenosis, 25% to 60%. A pressure gudiewire study and determination of the RFF and the iFR will be performed: in the event of a negative concordant result (FFR > 0.80/iFR > 0.89), no treatment will be performed; in case of a positive concordant result (FFR ≤ 0.80/iFR ≤ 0.89), revascularization will be performed; In the event of a discordant result (FFR> 0.80/iFR ≤ 0.89 or FFR ≤ 0.80/iFR> 0.89), an intravascular echocardiography will be performed and revascularization will be delayed if the minimum lumen area is > 6 mm2. The primary clinical endpoint will be a composite of cardiovascular death, LMCA lesion-related non-fatal infarction or need for revascularization of the LMCA lesion at 12 months. Conclusions: Confirm that an iFR-guided decision-making process in patients with intermediate LMCA stenosis is clinically safe and would have a significant clinical impact. Also, justify its systematic use when prescribing treatment in these potentially high-risk patients. Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( Identifier: NCT03767621).Introducción y objetivos: Los pacientes con estenosis en el tronco coronario izquierdo (TCI) han sido excluidos de los ensayos que apoyan la no inferioridad del cociente de presiones en el índice diastólico instantáneo sin ondas (iFR) respecto a la reserva fraccional de flujo (RFF) en la toma de decisiones sobre revascularización coronaria. El presente estudio propone valorar de manera prospectiva la concordancia entre los dos índices en lesiones del TCI y validar el valor de corte del iFR de 0,89 para su uso clínico. Métodos: Registro multicéntrico nacional, prospectivo, observacional, con la inclusión de 300 pacientes consecutivos con lesiones intermedias (estenosis angiográfica 25-60%) en el TCI. Se realizará un estudio con guía de presión y determinación de RFF e iFR. En caso de resultado concordante negativo (RFF > 0,80 / iFR > 0,89), no se realizará tratamiento; en caso de resultado concordante positivo (RFF ≤ 0,80 / iFR ≤ 0,89), se realizará revascularización; en caso de resultado discordante (RFF > 0,80 / iFR ≤ 0,89 o RFF ≤ 0,80 / iFR > 0,89), se realizará estudio con ecocardiografía intravascular y se considerará diferir la revascularización si el área luminal mínima es > 6 mm2. El criterio de valoración clínico primario será la incidencia del combinado de muerte cardiovascular, infarto no mortal relacionado con la lesión del TCI o necesidad de revascularización de la lesión del TCI a los 12 meses. Conclusiones: La demostración de la seguridad clínica en la toma de decisiones del iFR en pacientes con lesiones intermedias en el TCI tendría un impacto clínico importante y justificaría su uso sistemático para la decisión del tratamiento en estos pacientes de potencial alto riesgo. Registrado en ClinicalTrials.gov (identificador: NCT03767621)