Dataset Information

Determinants and prognostic implications of instantaneous wave-free ratio in patients with mild to intermediate coronary stenosis: Comparison with those of fractional flow reserve.

ABSTRACT: The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is used for assessing the hemodynamic severity of a lesion, as an alternative to the fractional flow reserve (FFR). We evaluated the relationship between iFR and FFR in detail and the clinical significance of iFR in patients with mild to intermediate coronary artery stenosis. We recruited consecutive 323 patients (421 lesions) with lesions exhibiting 30% to 80% diameter stenosis on angiography in whom FFR and iFR were measured. In the total lesions, mean diameter stenosis was 48.6% ± 9.0%, and physiological significance, defined by FFR of 0.80 or less or by iFR of 0.92 or less, was observed in 32.5% or 33.5%, respectively. Mismatch between iFR and FFR was observed in 18.1% of the lesions. Clinical factors did not predict FFR value; however, gender, diabetes mellitus, aortic stenosis, anemia, high-sensitivity CRP value, and renal function predicted iFR value. In multivariate logistic analysis after adjustment for FFR value, gender (p < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (p = 0.005), aortic stenosis (p = 0.016), high-sensitivity CRP (p < 0.001), and renal function (p = 0.003) were all independent predictors of iFR value. In Kaplan-Meier analysis, the baseline iFR predicted the subsequent major cardiovascular events (MACE) (hazard ratio, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.16-4.93; p = 0.018) and the results of the iFR-guided strategy for predicting rates of MACE and myocardial infarction/revascularization were superior to those of the FFR-guided strategy. In conclusion, significant clinical factors predicted iFR value, which affected the prognostic capacity. The iFR-guided strategy may be superior in patients with mild to intermediate stenosis.

SUBMITTER: Onishi K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7410195 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Determinants and prognostic implications of instantaneous wave-free ratio in patients with mild to intermediate coronary stenosis: Comparison with those of fractional flow reserve.

Onishi Kyohei K Watanabe Heitaro H Kakehi Kazuyoshi K Ikeda Tomoyuki T Takase Toru T Yamaji Kenji K Ueno Masafumi M Kobuke Kazuhiro K Nakazawa Gaku G Miyazaki Shunichi S Iwanaga Yoshitaka Y

PloS one 20200806 8

The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is used for assessing the hemodynamic severity of a lesion, as an alternative to the fractional flow reserve (FFR). We evaluated the relationship between iFR and FFR in detail and the clinical significance of iFR in patients with mild to intermediate coronary artery stenosis. We recruited consecutive 323 patients (421 lesions) with lesions exhibiting 30% to 80% diameter stenosis on angiography in whom FFR and iFR were measured. In the total lesions, mean d ...[more]

PMID: 32760123

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Quantitative flow ratio ( QFR ) has a high diagnostic accuracy in assessing functional stenoses relevance, as judged by fractional flow reserve ( FFR ). However, its diagnostic performance has not been thoroughly evaluated using instantaneous wave-free ratio ( iFR ) or coronary flow reserve as the reference standard. This study sought to evaluate the diagnostic performance of QFR using other reference standards beyond FFR . Methods and Results We analyzed 182 patients (253 vessels) with stable ischemic heart disease and 82 patients (105 nonculprit vessels) with acute myocardial infarction in whom coronary stenoses were assessed with FFR , iFR, and coronary flow reserve. Contrast QFR analysis of interrogated vessels was performed in blinded fashion by a core laboratory, and its diagnostic performance was evaluated with respect to the other invasive physiological indices. Mean percentage diameter stenosis, FFR , iFR , coronary flow reserve, and QFR were 53.1±19.0%, 0.80±0.13, 0.88±0.12, 3.14±1.30, and 0.81±0.14, respectively. QFR showed higher correlation ( r=0.863 with FFR versus 0.740 with iFR , P<0.001), diagnostic accuracy (90.8% versus 81.3%, P<0.001), and discriminant function (area under the curve=0.953 versus 0.880, P<0.001) when FFR was used as a reference standard than when iFR was used as the reference standard. However, when coronary flow reserve was used as an independent reference standard, FFR , iFR , and QFR showed modest discriminant function (area under the curve=0.682, 0.765, and 0.677, respectively) and there were no significant differences in diagnostic accuracy among FFR , iFR , and QFR (65.4%, 70.6%, and 64.9%; all P values in pairwise comparisons >0.05, overall comparison P=0.061). Conclusions QFR has a high correlation and agreement with respect to both FFR and iFR , although it is better when FFR is used as the comparator. As a pressure-derived index not depending on wire or adenosine, QFR might be a promising tool for improving the adoption rate of physiology-based revascularization in clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundThere 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.MethodsProspective, 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.ResultsFFR 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).ConclusionsIn 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.RegistrationURL: https://www.Clinicaltrialsgov; Unique identifier: NCT03767621.

Project description:BackgroundThere has been a gradual upward creep of revascularization thresholds for both fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), before the clinical outcome trials for both indices. The increase in revascularization that has potentially resulted is at odds with increasing evidence questioning the benefits of revascularizing stable coronary disease. Using an independent invasive reference standard, this study primarily aimed to define optimal thresholds for FFR and iFR and also aimed to compare the performance of iFR, FFR, and resting distal coronary pressure (Pd)/central aortic pressure (Pa).Methods and resultsPd and Pa were measured in 75 patients undergoing coronary angiography±percutaneous coronary intervention with resting Pd/Pa, iFR, and FFR calculated. Doppler average peak flow velocity was simultaneously measured and hyperemic stenosis resistance calculated as hyperemic stenosis resistance=Pa-Pd/average peak flow velocity (using hyperemic stenosis resistance >0.80 mm Hg/cm per second as invasive reference standard). An FFR threshold of 0.75 had an optimum diagnostic accuracy (84%), whereas for iFR this was 0.86 (76%). At these thresholds, the discordance in classification between indices was 11%. The accuracy of contemporary thresholds (FFR, 0.80; iFR, 0.89) was significantly lower (78.7% and 65.3%, respectively) with a 25% rate of discordance. The optimal threshold for Pd/Pa was 0.88 (77.3% accuracy). When comparing indices at optimal thresholds, FFR showed the best diagnostic performance (area under the curve, 0.91 FFR versus 0.79 iFR and 0.77 Pd/Pa, P=0.002).ConclusionsContemporary thresholds provide suboptimal diagnostic accuracy compared with an FFR threshold of 0.75 and iFR threshold of 0.86 (cutoffs in derivation studies). Whether more rigorous thresholds would result in selecting populations gaining greater symptom and prognostic benefit needs assessing in future trials of physiology-guided revascularization.

Dataset Information

Determinants and prognostic implications of instantaneous wave-free ratio in patients with mild to intermediate coronary stenosis: Comparison with those of fractional flow reserve.

Publications

Determinants and prognostic implications of instantaneous wave-free ratio in patients with mild to intermediate coronary stenosis: Comparison with those of fractional flow reserve.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets