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.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

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

Characterization of quantitative flow ratio and fractional flow reserve discordance using doppler flow and clinical follow-up

Abstract: The physiological mechanisms of quantitative flow ratio and fractional flow reserve disagreement are not fully understood. We aimed to characterize the coronary flow and resistance profile of intermediate stenosed epicardial coronary arteries with concordant and discordant FFR and QFR. Post-hoc analysis of the DEFINE-FLOW study. Anatomical and Doppler-derived physiological parameters were compared for lesions with FFR+QFR− (n = 18) vs. FFR+QFR+ (n = 43) and for FFR−QFR+ (n = 34) vs. FFR−QFR− (n = 139). The association of QFR results with the two-year rate of target vessel failure was assessed in the proportion of vessels (n = 195) that did not undergo revascularization. Coronary flow reserve was higher [2.3 (IQR: 2.1–2.7) vs. 1.9 (IQR: 1.5–2.4)], hyperemic microvascular resistance lower [1.72 (IQR: 1.48–2.31) vs. 2.26 (IQR: 1.79–2.87)] and anatomical lesion severity less severe [% diameter stenosis 45.5 (IQR: 41.5–52.5) vs. 58.5 (IQR: 53.1–64.0)] for FFR+QFR− lesions compared with FFR+QFR+ lesions. In comparison of FFR−QFR+ vs. FFR-QFR- lesions, lesion severity was more severe [% diameter stenosis 55.2 (IQR: 51.7–61.3) vs. 43.4 (IQR: 35.0–50.6)] while coronary flow reserve [2.2 (IQR: 1.9–2.9) vs. 2.2 (IQR: 1.9–2.6)] and hyperemic microvascular resistance [2.34 (IQR: 1.85–2.81) vs. 2.57 (IQR: 2.01–3.22)] did not differ. The agreement and diagnostic performance of FFR using hyperemic stenosis resistance (> 0.80) as reference standard was higher compared with QFR and coronary flow reserve. Disagreement between FFR and QFR is partly explained by physiological and anatomical factors. Clinical Trials Registrationhttps://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01813435. Graphical abstract: Changes in central physiological and anatomical parameters according to FFR and QFR match/mismatch quadrants.[Figure not available: see fulltext.

Phasic flow patterns of right versus left coronary arteries in patients undergoing clinical physiological assessment

BACKGROUND: Coronary blood flow in humans is known to be predominantly diastolic. Small studies in animals and humans suggest that this is less pronounced or even reversed in the right coronary artery (RCA). AIMS: This study aimed to characterise the phasic patterns of coronary flow in the left versus right coronary arteries of patients undergoing invasive physiological assessment. METHODS: We analysed data from the Iberian-Dutch-English Collaborators (IDEAL) study. A total of 482 simultaneous pressure and flow measurements from 301 patients were included in our analysis. RESULTS: On average, coronary flow was higher in diastole both at rest and during hyperaemia in both the RCA and LCA (mean diastolic-to-systolic velocity ratio [DSVR] was, respectively, 1.85±0.70, 1.76±0.58, 1.53±0.34 and 1.58±0.43 for LCA(rest), LCA(hyp), RCA(rest) and RCA(hyp), p<0.001 for between-vessel comparisons). Although the type of RCA dominance affected the DSVR magnitude (RCA(dom)=1.55±0.35, RCA(co-dom)=1.40±0.27, RCA(non-dom)=1.35; standard deviation not reported as n=3), systolic flow was very rarely predominant (DSVR was greater than or equal to 1.00 in 472/482 cases [97.9%] overall), with equal prevalence in the LCA. Stenosis severity or microvascular dysfunction had a negligible impact on DSVR in both the RCA and LCA (DSVR x hyperaemic stenosis resistance R(2) =0.018, p=0.03 and DSVR x coronary flow reserve R(2) <0.001, p=0.98). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with coronary artery disease undergoing physiological assessment, diastolic flow predominance is seen in both left and right coronary arteries. Clinical interpretation of coronary physiological data should therefore not differ between the left and the right coronary systems

Combined Assessment of FFR and CFR for Decision Making in Coronary Revascularization: From the Multicenter International ILIAS Registry

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to demonstrate the clinical implications of combined assessment of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and coronary flow reserve (CFR). BACKGROUND: Combined assessment of FFR and CFR allows detailed characterization of pathophysiology in chronic coronary syndromes. Data on the clinical implications of distinct FFR and CFR patterns are limited, leading to uncertainty regarding their relevance. METHODS: Patients with chronic coronary syndromes and obstructive coronary artery disease were selected from the multicenter ILIAS (Inclusive Invasive Physiological Assessment in Angina Syndromes) registry. Patients were classified into 4 groups on the basis of FFR ≤0.80 and CFR <2.0. The endpoint was the 5-year target vessel failure (TVF) rate. RESULTS: A total of 2,143 patients with 2,725 lesions were included. Compared with normal FFR/normal CFR, low FFR/low CFR carried the highest risk for TVF (HR: 5.4; 95% CI: 3.2-9.3; P < 0.001), significantly higher than in revascularized vessels (P = 0.007). Discordance, with either low FFR/normal CFR or normal FFR/low CFR, was associated with increased TVF rates compared with normal FFR/normal CFR (low FFR/normal CFR: HR: 3.5 [95% CI: 2.2-5.4; P < 0.001]; normal FFR/low CFR: HR: 3.0 [95% CI: 1.9-4.7; P < 0.001]). No difference in 5-year TVF was observed between the 2 discordant groups (P = 0.57) or between the discordant groups and the revascularized group (P = 0.26 vs low FFR/normal CFR; P = 0.60 vs normal FFR/low CFR). CONCLUSIONS: Impaired coronary hemodynamics are uniformly associated with increased 5-year TVF rates. Nonrevascularized vessels with discordant FFR and CFR are associated with 5-year event rates that are equivalent to those of vessels that undergo revascularization, whereas vessels with combined low FFR and CFR exhibit event rates that are significantly higher than after revascularization. (Inclusive Invasive Physiological Assessment in Angina Syndromes Registry [ILIAS Registry]; NCT04485234)

Combined Assessment of FFR and CFR for Decision Making in Coronary Revascularization: From the Multicenter International ILIAS Registry

Objectives: The aim of this study was to demonstrate the clinical implications of combined assessment of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and coronary flow reserve (CFR). Background: Combined assessment of FFR and CFR allows detailed characterization of pathophysiology in chronic coronary syndromes. Data on the clinical implications of distinct FFR and CFR patterns are limited, leading to uncertainty regarding their relevance. Methods: Patients with chronic coronary syndromes and obstructive coronary artery disease were selected from the multicenter ILIAS (Inclusive Invasive Physiological Assessment in Angina Syndromes) registry. Patients were classified into 4 groups on the basis of FFR ≤0.80 and CFR <2.0. The endpoint was the 5-year target vessel failure (TVF) rate. Results: A total of 2,143 patients with 2,725 lesions were included. Compared with normal FFR/normal CFR, low FFR/low CFR carried the highest risk for TVF (HR: 5.4; 95% CI: 3.2-9.3; P < 0.001), significantly higher than in revascularized vessels (P = 0.007). Discordance, with either low FFR/normal CFR or normal FFR/low CFR, was associated with increased TVF rates compared with normal FFR/normal CFR (low FFR/normal CFR: HR: 3.5 [95% CI: 2.2-5.4; P < 0.001]; normal FFR/low CFR: HR: 3.0 [95% CI: 1.9-4.7; P < 0.001]). No difference in 5-year TVF was observed between the 2 discordant groups (P = 0.57) or between the discordant groups and the revascularized group (P = 0.26 vs low FFR/normal CFR; P = 0.60 vs normal FFR/low CFR). Conclusions: Impaired coronary hemodynamics are uniformly associated with increased 5-year TVF rates. Nonrevascularized vessels with discordant FFR and CFR are associated with 5-year event rates that are equivalent to those of vessels that undergo revascularization, whereas vessels with combined low FFR and CFR exhibit event rates that are significantly higher than after revascularization. (Inclusive Invasive Physiological Assessment in Angina Syndromes Registry [ILIAS Registry]; NCT04485234

Combined Assessment of FFR and CFR for Decision Making in Coronary Revascularization: From the Multicenter International ILIAS Registry

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to demonstrate the clinical implications of combined assessment of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and coronary flow reserve (CFR).BACKGROUND Combined assessment of FFR and CFR allows detailed characterization of pathophysiology in chronic coronary syndromes. Data on the clinical implications of distinct FFR and CFR patterns are limited, leading to uncertainty regarding their relevance.METHODS Patients with chronic coronary syndromes and obstructive coronary artery disease were selected from the multicenter ILIAS (Inclusive Invasive Physiological Assessment in Angina Syndromes) registry. Patients were classified into 4 groups on the basis of FFR &lt;0.80 and CFR &lt;2.0. The endpoint was the 5-year target vessel failure (TVF) rate.RESULTS A total of 2,143 patients with 2,725 lesions were included. Compared with normal FFR/normal CFR, low FFR/low CFR carried the highest risk for TVF (HR: 5.4; 95% CI: 3.2-9.3; P &lt; 0.001), significantly higher than in revascularized vessels (P = 0.007). Discordance, with either low FFR/normal CFR or normal FFR/low CFR, was associated with increased TVF rates compared with normal FFR/normal CFR (low FFR/normal CFR: HR: 3.5 [95% CI: 2.2-5.4; P &lt; 0.001]; normal FFR/low CFR: HR: 3.0 [95% CI: 1.9-4.7; P &lt; 0.001]). No difference in 5-year TVF was observed between the 2 discordant groups (P = 0.57) or between the discordant groups and the revascularized group (P = 0.26 vs low FFR/normal CFR; P = 0.60 vs normal FFR/low CFR).CONCLUSIONS Impaired coronary hemodynamics are uniformly associated with increased 5-year TVF rates. Nonrevascularized vessels with discordant FFR and CFR are associated with 5-year event rates that are equivalent to those of vessels that undergo revascularization, whereas vessels with combined low FFR and CFR exhibit event rates that are significantly higher than after revascularization. (C) 2022 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation