RESUMO
Resumo Fundamento Os limiares de corte para a "relação do ciclo completo de repouso" (RFR) oscilam em diferentes séries, sugerindo que as características da população podem influenciá-los. Da mesma forma, foram documentados preditores de discordância entre a RFR e a reserva de fluxo fracionado (FFR). O Estudo RECOPA, mostrou que a capacidade diagnóstica está reduzida na "zona cinzenta" da RFR, tornando necessária a realização de FFR para descartar ou confirmar isquemia. Objetivos Determinar os preditores de discordância, integrar as informações que eles fornecem em um índice clínico-fisiológico: a "RFR Ajustada", e comparar sua concordância com o FFR. Métodos Usando dados do Estudo RECOPA, os preditores de discordância em relação à FFR foram determinados na "zona cinzenta" da RFR (0,86 a 0,92) para construir um índice ("RFR Ajustada") que pesaria a RFR juntamente com os preditores de discordância e avaliar sua concordância com a FFR. Resultados Foram avaliadas 156 lesões em 141 pacientes. Os preditores de discordância foram: doença renal crônica, cardiopatia isquêmica prévia, lesões não envolvendo a artéria descendente anterior esquerda e síndrome coronariana aguda. Embora limitada, a "RFR Ajustada" melhorou a capacidade diagnóstica em comparação com a RFR na "zona cinzenta" (AUC-RFR = 0,651 versus AUC-"RFR Ajustada" = 0,749), mostrando também uma melhora em todos os índices diagnósticos quando foram estabelecidos limiares de corte otimizados (sensibilidade: 59% a 68%; especificidade: 62% a 75%; acurácia diagnóstica: 60% a 71%; razão de verossimilhança positiva: 1,51 a 2,34; razão de verossimilhança negativa: 0,64 a 0,37). Conclusões Ajustar a RFR integrando as informações fornecidas pelos preditores de discordância para obter a "RFR Ajustada" melhorou a capacidade diagnóstica em nossa população. Mais estudos são necessários para avaliar se os índices clínico-fisiológicos melhoram a capacidade diagnóstica da RFR ou de outros índices coronarianos.
Abstract Background Cutoff thresholds for the "resting full-cycle ratio" (RFR) oscillate in different series, suggesting that population characteristics may influence them. Likewise, predictors of discordance between the RFR and fractional flow reserve (FFR) have been documented. The RECOPA Study showed that diagnostic capacity is reduced in the RFR "grey zone", requiring the performance of FFR to rule out or confirm ischemia. Objectives To determine predictors of discordance, integrate the information they provide in a clinical-physiological index, the "Adjusted RFR", and compare its agreement with the FFR. Methods Using data from the RECOPA Study, predictors of discordance with respect to FFR were determined in the RFR "grey zone" (0.86 to 0.92) to construct an index ("Adjusted RFR") that would weigh RFR together with predictors of discordance and evaluate its agreement with FFR. Results A total of 156 lesions were evaluated in 141 patients. Predictors of discordance were: chronic kidney disease, previous ischemic heart disease, lesions not involving the anterior descending artery, and acute coronary syndrome. Though limited, the "Adjusted RFR" improved the diagnostic capacity compared to the RFR in the "grey zone" (AUC-RFR = 0.651 versus AUC-"Adjusted RFR" = 0.749), also showing an improvement in all diagnostic indices when optimal cutoff thresholds were established (sensitivity: 59% to 68%; specificity: 62% to 75%; diagnostic accuracy: 60% to 71%; positive likelihood ratio: 1.51 to 2.34; negative likelihood ratio: 0.64 to 0.37). Conclusions Adjusting the RFR by integrating the information provided by predictors of discordance to obtain the "Adjusted RFR" improved the diagnostic capacity in our population. Further studies are required to evaluate whether clinical-physiological indices improve the diagnostic capacity of RFR or other coronary indices.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) is a novel resting index which in contrast to the gold standard (fractional flow reserve (FFR)) does not require maximum hyperemia induction. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the agreement between RFR and FFR with the currently recommended thresholds and to design a hybrid RFR-FFR ischemia detection strategy, allowing a reduction of coronary vasodilator use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients subjected to invasive physiological study in 9 Spanish centers were prospectively recruited between April 2019 and March 2020. Sensitivity and specificity studies were made to assess diagnostic accuracy between the recommended levels of RFR ≤0.89 and FFR ≤0.80 (primary objective) and to determine the RFR "grey zone" in order to define a hybrid strategy with FFR affording 95% global agreement compared with FFR alone (secondary objective). RESULTS: A total of 380 lesions were evaluated in 311 patients. Significant correlation was observed (R 2 = 0.81; P < 0.001) between the two techniques, with 79% agreement between RFR ≤ 0.89 and FFR ≤ 0.80 (positive predictive value, 68%, and negative predictive value, 80%). The hybrid RFR-FFR strategy, administering only adenosine in the "grey zone" (RFR: 0.86 to 0.92), exhibited an agreement of over 95% with FFR, with high predictive values (positive predictive value, 91%, and negative predictive value, 92%), reducing the need for vasodilators by 58%. CONCLUSIONS: Dichotomous agreement between RFR and FFR with the recommended thresholds is significant but limited. The adoption of a hybrid RFR-FFR strategy affords very high agreement, with minimization of vasodilator use.