Adoption and patterns of use of invasive physiological assessment of coronary artery disease in a large cohort of 40 821 real-world procedures over a 12-year period

Introduction and Objectives: Use of invasive physiological assessment in patients with coronary artery disease varies widely and is perceived to be low. We aimed to examine adoption rates as well as patterns and determinants of use in an unselected population undergoing invasive coronary angiography over a long time frame. Methods: We retrospectively determined the per-procedure prevalence of physiological assessment in 40 821 coronary cases performed between 2007 and 2018 in two large-volume centers. Adoption was examined according to procedure type and patient- and operator-related variables. Its association with relevant scientific landmarks, such as the release of clinical trial results and practice guidelines, was also assessed. Results: Overall adoption was low, ranging from 0.6% in patients undergoing invasive coronary angiography due to underlying valve disease, to 6% in the setting of stable coronary artery disease (CAD); it was 3.1% in patients sustaining an acute coronary syndrome. Of scientific landmarks, FAME 1, the long-term results of FAME 2 and the 2014 European myocardial revascularization guidelines were associated with changes in practice. Publication of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) trials had no influence on adoption rates, except for a higher proportion of iFR use. In 42.9% of stable CAD patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention there was no objective non-invasive evidence of ischemia, nor was physiological assessment performed. Younger operator age (4.5% vs. 4.0% vs. 0.9% for ages 55 years, respectively; p 55 anos, respetivamente; p < 0,001) e a hora de realização do procedimento (2,9% entre as 6-8PM versus 4,4% durante o restante dia) relacionaram-se inversamente com a utilização de fisiologia durante os procedimentos. Conclusões: Esta análise confirma a baixa de utilização da avaliação funcional invasiva na prática clínica. A disponibilidade de evidência sobre o uso de índices não hiperémicos não aumentou a adoção. São necessárias estratégias dirigidas que potenciem a implantação das recomendações, de forma que o manejo dos doentes com doença coronária e os benefícios clínicos da estratificação invasiva possam ser aprimorados.