Search

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the long-term clinical outcomes of patients with left main coronary artery (LM) stenosis in whom treatment strategy was based on the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR)., Background: The overall safety of iFR to guide revascularization decision making in patients with stable coronary artery disease has been established. However, no study has examined the safety of deferral of revascularization of LM disease on the basis of iFR., Methods: This multicenter observational study included 314 patients in whom LM stenosis was deferred (n = 163 [51.9%]) or revascularized (n = 151 [48.1%]) according to the iFR cutoff ≤0.89. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The secondary endpoints were each individual component of the primary endpoint and also cardiac death., Results: At a median follow-up period of 30 months, the primary endpoint occurred in 15 patients (9.2%) in the deferred group and 22 patients (14.6%) in the revascularized group (hazard ratio: 1.45; 95% confidence interval: 0.75 to 2.81; p = 0.26), indicating no evidence of a significant difference between the 2 groups. For the secondary endpoints, findings in the iFR-based deferral and revascularization groups were as follows: all-cause death, 3.7% versus 4.6%; cardiac death, 1.2% versus 2.0%; nonfatal myocardial infarction, 2.5% versus 5.3%; and target lesion revascularization, 4.3% versus 5.3% (p > 0.05 for all)., Conclusions: Deferral of revascularization of LM stenosis on the basis of iFR appears to be safe, with similar long-term outcomes to those in patients in whom LM revascularization was performed according to iFR values., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: The study sought to determine the coronary flow characteristics of angiographically intermediate stenoses classified as discordant by fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR)., Background: Discordance between FFR and iFR occurs in up to 20% of cases. No comparisons have been reported between the coronary flow characteristics of FFR/iFR discordant and angiographically unobstructed vessels., Methods: Baseline and hyperemic coronary flow velocity and coronary flow reserve (CFR) were compared across 5 vessel groups: FFR+/iFR+ (108 vessels, n = 91), FFR-/iFR+ (28 vessels, n = 24), FFR+/iFR- (22 vessels, n = 22), FFR-/iFR- (208 vessels, n = 154), and an unobstructed vessel group (201 vessels, n = 153), in a post hoc analysis of the largest combined pressure and Doppler flow velocity registry (IDEAL [Iberian-Dutch-English] collaborators study)., Results: FFR disagreed with iFR in 14% (50 of 366). Baseline flow velocity was similar across all 5 vessel groups, including the unobstructed vessel group (p = 0.34 for variance). In FFR+/iFR- discordants, hyperemic flow velocity and CFR were similar to both FFR-/iFR- and unobstructed groups; 37.6 (interquartile range [IQR]: 26.1 to 50.4) cm/s vs. 40.0 [IQR: 29.7 to 52.3] cm/s and 42.2 [IQR: 33.8 to 53.2] cm/s and CFR 2.36 [IQR: 1.93 to 2.81] vs. 2.41 [IQR: 1.84 to 2.94] and 2.50 [IQR: 2.11 to 3.17], respectively (p > 0.05 for all). In FFR-/iFR+ discordants, hyperemic flow velocity, and CFR were similar to the FFR+/iFR+ group; 28.2 (IQR: 20.5 to 39.7) cm/s versus 23.5 (IQR: 16.4 to 34.9) cm/s and CFR 1.44 (IQR: 1.29 to 1.85) versus 1.39 (IQR: 1.06 to 1.88), respectively (p > 0.05 for all)., Conclusions: FFR/iFR disagreement was explained by differences in hyperemic coronary flow velocity. Furthermore, coronary stenoses classified as FFR+/iFR- demonstrated similar coronary flow characteristics to angiographically unobstructed vessels., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to understand the physiological basis of baseline distal-to-aortic pressure ratio (Pd/Pa) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) agreement and discordance, using coronary flow reserve (CFR), stenosis resistance, and microcirculatory resistance measurements, and form there, to investigate the potential value of combining Pd/Pa with FFR in the diagnostic rationale., Background: Pd/Pa is always available before FFR assessment, and emerging data supports the notion that baseline indices can determine the ischemic potential of coronary stenosis in selected subsets., Methods: A total of 467 stenosed vessels from 363 patients were investigated with pressure and flow sensors during baseline and hyperemia: 168 vessels (135 patients) with thermodilution-derived flow, and 299 vessels (228 patients) with Doppler-derived flow., Results: Pd/Pa correlated more strongly with CFR than FFR (ρ difference = 0.129; p for ρ comparison <0.001). Although Pd/Pa and FFR were closely correlated (ρ = 0.798; 95% confidence interval: 0.767 to 0.828), categorical discordance was observed in 19.3% of total vessels. Such discordance was associated with the patients' clinical profile and was characterized by contrastive changes in stenosis resistance, microcirculatory resistance, and the underlying CFR. Notably, all stenosis with Pd/Pa ≤0.83 (n = 74, 15.8%) progressed to FFR ≤0.80, and although no Pd/Pa cutoff was able to exclude the development of FFR ≤0.80 in the high end of values, only 15 (10.1%) vessels with Pd/Pa ≥0.96 (n = 149, 31.9%) developed FFR ≤0.80, from which none had definite ischemia, as defined by CFR ≤1.74., Conclusions: Combining baseline Pd/Pa with FFR seems to provide a more comprehensive physiological examination of stenosed coronary arteries and a closer pressure-based appraisal of the flow reserve of the downstream myocardial bed., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the effects of fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement variability on FFR-guided treatment strategy., Background: Current appropriateness guidelines recommend the utilization of FFR to guide coronary revascularization based on a fixed cut-off of 0.8. This rigid approach does not take into account the intrinsic biological variability of a single FFR result and the clinical judgment of experienced interventional cardiologists. [corrected]., Methods: FFR reproducibility data from the landmark Deferral Versus Performance of PTCA in Patients Without Documented Ischemia (DEFER) trial was analyzed (two repeated FFR measurements in the same lesion, 10 min apart) and the standard deviation of the difference (SDD) between repeated measurements was calculated. The measurement certainty (probability that the FFR-guided revascularization strategy will not change if the test is repeated 10 min later) was subsequently established across the whole range of FFR values, from 0.2 to 1., Results: Outside the [0.75 to 0.85] FFR range, measurement certainty of a single FFR result is >95%. However, closer to its cut-off, certainty falls to less than 80% within 0.77 to 0.83, reaching a nadir of 50% around 0.8. In clinical practice, that means that each time a single FFR value falls between 0.75 and 0.85, there is a chance that the FFR-derived revascularization recommendation will change if the measurement is repeated 10 min later, with this chance increasing the closer the FFR result is to 0.8., Conclusions: A measurement FFR gray-zone is found between 0.75 and 0.85]. Therefore, clinicians should make revascularization decisions based on broadened clinical judgment when a single FFR result falls within this uncertainty zone, particularly between 0.77 and 0.83, when measurement certainty falls to less than 80%., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)