Coronary sinus reducer for the treatment of refractory angina (ORBITA-COSMIC): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The coronary sinus reducer (CSR) is proposed to reduce angina in patients with stable coronary artery disease by improving myocardial perfusion. We aimed to measure its efficacy, compared with placebo, on myocardial ischaemia reduction and symptom improvement. METHODS: ORBITA-COSMIC was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial conducted at six UK hospitals. Patients aged 18 years or older with angina, stable coronary artery disease, ischaemia, and no further options for treatment were eligible. All patients completed a quantitative adenosine-stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance scan, symptom and quality-of-life questionnaires, and a treadmill exercise test before entering a 2-week symptom assessment phase, in which patients reported their angina symptoms using a smartphone application (ORBITA-app). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either CSR or placebo. Both participants and investigators were masked to study assignment. After the CSR implantation or placebo procedure, patients entered a 6-month blinded follow-up phase in which they reported their daily symptoms in the ORBITA-app. At 6 months, all assessments were repeated. The primary outcome was myocardial blood flow in segments designated ischaemic at enrolment during the adenosine-stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance scan. The primary symptom outcome was the number of daily angina episodes. Analysis was done by intention-to-treat and followed Bayesian methodology. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04892537, and completed. FINDINGS: Between May 26, 2021, and June 28, 2023, 61 patients were enrolled, of whom 51 (44 [86%] male; seven [14%] female) were randomly assigned to either the CSR group (n=25) or the placebo group (n=26). Of these, 50 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (24 in the CSR group and 26 in the placebo group). 454 (57%) of 800 imaged cardiac segments were ischaemic at enrolment, with a median stress myocardial blood flow of 1·08 mL/min per g (IQR 0·77-1·41). Myocardial blood flow in ischaemic segments did not improve with CSR compared with placebo (difference 0·06 mL/min per g [95% CrI -0·09 to 0·20]; Pr(Benefit)=78·8%). The number of daily angina episodes was reduced with CSR compared with placebo (OR 1·40 [95% CrI 1·08 to 1·83]; Pr(Benefit)=99·4%). There were two CSR embolisation events in the CSR group, and no acute coronary syndrome events or deaths in either group. INTERPRETATION: ORBITA-COSMIC found no evidence that the CSR improved transmural myocardial perfusion, but the CSR did improve angina compared with placebo. These findings provide evidence for the use of CSR as a further antianginal option for patients with stable coronary artery disease. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, St Mary's Coronary Flow Trust, British Heart Foundation.

Deferred Versus Performed Revascularization for Left Main Coronary Disease With Hemodynamic Significance.

BACKGROUND: The majority of randomized controlled trials of revascularization decision-making excludes left main coronary artery disease (LMD). Therefore, contemporary clinical outcomes of patients with stable coronary artery disease and LMD with proven ischemia remain poorly understood. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term clinical outcomes of physiologically significant LMD according to the treatment strategies of revascularization versus revascularization deferral. METHODS: In this international multicenter registry of stable LMD interrogated with the instantaneous wave-free ratio, patients with physiologically significant ischemia (instantaneous wave-free ratio ≤0.89) were analyzed according to the coronary revascularization (n=151) versus revascularization deferral (n=74). Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline clinical characteristics. The primary end point was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization of left main stem. The secondary end points were as follows: cardiac death or spontaneous LMD-related myocardial infarction; and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization of left main stem. RESULTS: At a median follow-up period of 2.8 years, the primary end point occurred in 11 patients (14.9%) in the revascularized group and 21 patients (28.4%) in the deferred group (hazard ratio, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.20-0.89]; P=0.023). For the secondary end points, cardiac death or LMD-related myocardial infarction occurred significantly less frequently in the revascularized group (0.0% versus 8.1%; P=0.004). The rate of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization of left main stem was also significantly lower in the revascularized group (5.4% versus 17.6%; hazard ratio, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.056-0.70]; P=0.012). CONCLUSIONS: In patients who underwent revascularization for stable coronary artery disease and physiologically significant LMD determined by instantaneous wave-free ratio, the long-term clinical outcomes were significantly improved as compared with those in whom revascularization was deferred.

Physiology-guided PCI versus CABG for left main coronary artery disease: insights from the DEFINE-LM registry.

There have been no studies comparing clinical outcomes of physiology-guided revascularization in patients with unprotected left main coronary disease (ULMD) between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The aim of this study was to assess the long-term clinical outcomes between PCI and CABG of patients with physiologically significant ULMD. From an international multicenter registry of ULMD patients interrogated with instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), we analyzed data from 151 patients (85 PCI vs. 66 CABG) who underwent revascularization according to the cutoff value of iFR ≤ 0.89. Propensity score matching was employed to adjust for baseline clinical characteristics. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The secondary endpoints were the individual components of the primary endpoint. Mean age was 66.6 (± 9.2) years, 79.2% male. Mean SYNTAX score was 22.6 (± 8.4) and median iFR was 0.83 (IQR 0.74-0.87). After performing propensity score matching analysis, 48 patients treated with CABG were matched to those who underwent PCI. At a median follow-up period of 2.8 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 8.3% in PCI group and 20.8% in CABG group, respectively (HR 3.80; 95% CI 1.04-13.9; p = 0.043). There was no difference in each component of the primary event (p > 0.05 for all). Within the present study, iFR-guided PCI was associated with lower cardiovascular events rate in patients with ULMD and intermediate SYNTAX score, as compared to CABG. State-of-the-art PCI vs. CABG for ULMD. Study design and primary endpoint in patients with physiologically significant ULMD. MACE was defined as the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. The blue line denotes the PCI arm, and the red line denotes the CABG arm. PCI was associated with significantly lower risk of MACE than CABG. CABG: coronary artery bypass grafting; iFR: instantaneous wave-free ratio; MACE: major adverse cardiovascular events; PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention; ULMD: unprotected left main coronary artery disease.

Comparing invasive hemodynamic responses in adenosine hyperemia versus physical exercise stress in chronic coronary syndromes.

OBJECTIVES: Adenosine hyperemia is an integral component of the physiological assessment of obstructive coronary artery disease in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). The aim of this study was to compare systemic, coronary and microcirculatory hemodynamics between intravenous (IV) adenosine hyperemia versus physical exercise stress in patients with CCS and coronary stenosis. METHODS: Twenty-three patients (mean age, 60.6 ± 8.1 years) with CCS and single-vessel coronary stenosis underwent cardiac catheterization. Continuous trans-stenotic coronary pressure-flow measurements were performed during: i) IV adenosine hyperemia, and ii) physical exercise using a catheter-table-mounted supine ergometer. Systemic, coronary and microcirculatory hemodynamic responses were compared between IV adenosine and exercise stimuli. RESULTS: Mean stenosis diameter was 74.6% ± 10.4. Median (interquartile range) FFR was 0.54 (0.44-0.72). At adenosine hyperemia versus exercise stress, mean aortic pressure (Pa, 91 ± 16 mmHg vs 99 ± 15 mmHg, p < 0.0001), distal coronary pressure (Pd, 58 ± 21 mmHg vs 69 ± 24 mmHg, p < 0.0001), trans-stenotic pressure ratio (Pd/Pa, 0.63 ± 0.18 vs 0.69 ± 0.19, p < 0.0001), microvascular resistance (MR, 2.9 ± 2.2 mmHg.cm-1.sec-1 vs 4.2 ± 1.7 mmHg.cm-1.sec-1, p = 0.001), heart rate (HR, 80 ± 15 bpm vs 85 ± 21 bpm, p = 0.02) and rate-pressure product (RPP, 7522 ± 2335 vs 9077 ± 3200, p = 0.0001) were all lower. Conversely, coronary flow velocity (APV, 23.7 ± 9.5 cm/s vs 18.5 ± 6.8 cm/s, p = 0.02) was higher. Additionally, temporal changes in Pa, Pd, Pd/Pa, MR, HR, RPP and APV during IV adenosine hyperemia versus exercise were all significantly different (p < 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CCS and coronary stenosis, invasive hemodynamic responses differed markedly between IV adenosine hyperemia versus physical exercise stress. These differences were observed across systemic, coronary and microcirculatory hemodynamics.

Safety of Revascularization Deferral of Left Main Stenosis Based on Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Evaluation.

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.

Use of the Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve in PCI.

BACKGROUND: Coronary revascularization guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is associated with better patient outcomes after the procedure than revascularization guided by angiography alone. It is unknown whether the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), an alternative measure that does not require the administration of adenosine, will offer benefits similar to those of FFR. METHODS: We randomly assigned 2492 patients with coronary artery disease, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo either iFR-guided or FFR-guided coronary revascularization. The primary end point was the 1-year risk of major adverse cardiac events, which were a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. The trial was designed to show the noninferiority of iFR to FFR, with a margin of 3.4 percentage points for the difference in risk. RESULTS: At 1 year, the primary end point had occurred in 78 of 1148 patients (6.8%) in the iFR group and in 83 of 1182 patients (7.0%) in the FFR group (difference in risk, -0.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.3 to 1.8; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.33; P=0.78). The risk of each component of the primary end point and of death from cardiovascular or noncardiovascular causes did not differ significantly between the groups. The number of patients who had adverse procedural symptoms and clinical signs was significantly lower in the iFR group than in the FFR group (39 patients [3.1%] vs. 385 patients [30.8%], P<0.001), and the median procedural time was significantly shorter (40.5 minutes vs. 45.0 minutes, P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Coronary revascularization guided by iFR was noninferior to revascularization guided by FFR with respect to the risk of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year. The rate of adverse procedural signs and symptoms was lower and the procedural time was shorter with iFR than with FFR. (Funded by Philips Volcano; DEFINE-FLAIR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02053038 .).

Fractional flow reserve and minimum Pd/Pa ratio during intravenous adenosine infusion: very similar but not always the same.

AIMS: Maximum and stable hyperaemia are critical prerequisites for the accurate measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR). However, in some patients in whom hyperaemia is induced through a central vein (IV) the minimum distal coronary pressure to aortic pressure ratio (Pd/Pa ratio) develops before the stabilisation of hyperaemia. We sought to describe the prevalence, magnitude and clinical implications of this phenomenon. METHODS AND RESULTS: The FFR tracing archive of a single institution was reviewed and a total of 104 high-quality IV-FFR recordings from 90 patients were identified. Whenever the minimum Pd/Pa ratio was found before the onset of stable hyperaemia, a search for the lowest Pd/Pa ratio within the steady-state hyperaemic plateau was performed and labelled as FFRstable. Whilst in most cases the minimum Pd/Pa ratio developed during stable hyperaemia, in 19 cases (prevalence of 18.3% [95% CI: 12.0% to 26.8%]) this value was found before the stabilisation of the hyperaemic state. In such cases, the minimum Pd/Pa ratio stabilised later at a higher level (0.77±0.09 vs. 0.81±0.08, p<0.001) (mean difference, 0.03±0.02, range, 0.01 to 0.10). In terms of dichotomous classification of stenosis severity and if FFRstable had been used to decide on revascularisation, reclassification would have occurred in three (2.9%) cases, all presenting a minimum Pd/Pa ratio ≤0.80 with FFRstable >0.80. CONCLUSIONS: During IV adenosine infusion, the minimum Pd/Pa ratio occurs before the stabilisation of hyperaemia in a significant proportion of cases. While the overall difference between the minimum Pd/Pa ratio and its FFRstable counterpart is small, reclassification of stenosis severity might occur, if choosing between the minimum and stable values of FFR within the same trace.

A new method of applying randomised control study data to the individual patient: A novel quantitative patient-centred approach to interpreting composite end points.

BACKGROUND: Modern randomised controlled trials typically use composite endpoints. This is only valid if each endpoint is equally important to patients but few trials document patient preference and seek the relative importance of components of combined endpoints. If patients weigh endpoints differentially, our interpretation of trial data needs to be refined. METHODS AND RESULTS: We derive a quantitative, structured tool to determine the relative importance of each endpoint to patients. We then apply this tool to data comparing angioplasty with drug-eluting stents to bypass surgery. The survey was administered to patients undergoing cardiac catheterisation. A meta-analysis comparing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to percutaneous coronary interventuin (PCI) was then performed using (a) standard MACE and (b) patient-centred MACE. Patients considered stroke worse than death (stroke 102.3 ± 19.6%, p < 0.01), and MI and repeat revascularisation less severe than death (61.9 ± 26.8% and 41.9 ± 25.4% respectively p < 0.01 for both). 7 RCTs (5251 patients) were eligible. Meta-analysis demonstrated that standard MACE occurs more frequently with PCI than surgery (OR 1.44; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.87; p = 0.007). Re-analysis using patient-centred MACE found no significant difference between PCI and CABG (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.53; p = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Patients do not consider the constituent endpoints of MACE equal. We derive a novel patient-centred metric that recognises and quantifies the differences attributed to each endpoint. When patient preference data are applied to contemporary trial results, there is no significant difference between PCI and CABG. Responses from individual patients in clinic could be used to give individual patients a recommendation that is truly personalised.

Advances in coronary physiology.

Pressure-wire technology, most typically fractional flow reserve (FFR), has provided interventional cardiologists with a means of determining the physiological importance of a stenosis during angiography. There has been renewed interest in coronary physiology in the light of guideline recognition, ongoing clinical research and new technologies changing the paradigm of how assessment is performed in the catheter laboratory. We reflect on FFR, with regards the potential effects of changing hemodynamics on FFR and the latest evidence with regards to outcomes. We also review the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), a new pressure-only index, measured at rest, that is under active evaluation in several international randomized controlled trials. We review the accumulated evidence and discuss the important physiological concepts between pressure and flow that underlie the approach to using resting indices. Finally we investigate future developments, including physiological mapping with iFR-Pullback and the potential to predict the hemodynamic effect of stenting.

Head-to-head comparison of basal stenosis resistance index, instantaneous wave-free ratio, and fractional flow reserve: diagnostic accuracy for stenosis-specific myocardial ischaemia.

AIMS: We sought to compare the diagnostic accuracy of basal stenosis resistance index (BSR), instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) for stenosis-specific myocardial ischaemia identified by means of a combined reference standard of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy and the hyperaemic stenosis resistance index. METHODS AND RESULTS: BSR and FFR were determined for 299 coronary stenoses, iFR was determined for 85 coronary stenoses (iFR cohort). The discriminative value for stenosis-specific myocardial ischaemia was compared by means of the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (AUC). Classification agreement with the reference standard was determined according to ROC curve-derived ischaemic cut-off values, as well as according to clinical cut-off values, equivalent to the 0.80 FFR cut-off. Across all stenoses, the discriminative value of BSR and FFR was equivalent (AUC: 0.90 and 0.91, respectively, p=0.46). In the iFR cohort, the discriminative value was equivalent for BSR, iFR, and FFR (AUC: 0.88, 0.84, and 0.88, respectively; p≥0.20 for all). At both ischaemic as well as clinical cut-off values, classification agreement with the reference standard was equivalent for BSR and FFR across all stenoses, as well as for BSR, iFR, and FFR in the iFR cohort. CONCLUSIONS: BSR, iFR, and FFR have equivalent diagnostic accuracy for the detection of ischaemia-generating coronary stenoses.

Can Resting Indices Obviate the Need for Hyperemia and Promote the Routine Use of Physiologically Guided Revascularization?

This article assesses the data from contemporary human studies to address some of the common assumptions regarding hyperemic and baseline physiology in the context of the baseline pressure-derived index of instant wave-free ratio and the hyperemic index of fractional flow reserve. The article aims to determine if the available evidence supports the continued investigation, development, and use of baseline indices.

Low coronary microcirculatory resistance associated with profound hypotension during intravenous adenosine infusion: implications for the functional assessment of coronary stenoses.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous adenosine infusion produces coronary and systemic vasodilatation, generally leading to systemic hypotension. However, adenosine-induced hypotension during stable hyperemia is heterogeneous, and its relevance to coronary stenoses assessment with fractional flow reserve (FFR) remains largely unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: FFR, coronary flow reserve, and index of microcirculatory resistance were measured in 93 stenosed arteries (79 patients). Clinical and intracoronary measurements were analyzed among tertiles of the percentage degree of adenosine-induced hypotension, defined as follows: %ΔP(a)=-[100-(hyperemic aortic pressure×100/baseline aortic pressure)]. Overall, %ΔP(a) was -13.6±12.0%. Body mass index was associated with %ΔP(a) (r=0.258; P=0.025) and obesity, an independent predictor of profound adenosine-induced hypotension (tertile 3 of %ΔP(a); odds ratio, 3.95 [95% confidence interval, 1.48-10.54]; P=0.006). %ΔP(a) was associated with index of microcirculatory resistance (ρ=0.311; P=0.002), coronary flow reserve (r=-0.246; P=0.017), and marginally with FFR (r=0.203; P=0.051). However, index of microcirculatory resistance (ß=0.003; P<0.001) and not %ΔP(a) (ß=-0.001; P=0.564) was a predictor of FFR. Compared with tertiles 1 and 2 of %ΔP(a) (n=62 [66.6%]), stenoses assessed during profound adenosine-induced hypotension (n=31 [33.3%]) had lower index of microcirculatory resistance (12.4 [8.6-22.7] versus 20 [15.8-35.5]; P=0.001) and FFR values (0.77±0.13 versus 0.83±0.12; P=0.021), as well as a nonsignificant increase in coronary flow reserve (2.5±1.1 versus 2.2±0.87; P=0.170). CONCLUSIONS: The modification of systemic blood pressure during intravenous adenosine infusion is related to hyperemic microcirculatory resistance in the heart. Profound adenosine-induced hypotension is associated with obesity, lower coronary microcirculatory resistance, and lower FFR values.

Hemodynamic response to intravenous adenosine and its effect on fractional flow reserve assessment: results of the Adenosine for the Functional Evaluation of Coronary Stenosis Severity (AFFECTS) study.

BACKGROUND: We studied the hemodynamic response to intravenous adenosine on calculation of fractional flow reserve (FFR). Intravenous adenosine is widely used to achieve conditions of stable hyperemia for measurement of FFR. However, intravenous adenosine affects both systemic and coronary vascular beds differentially. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 283 patients (310 coronary stenoses) underwent coronary angiography with FFR using intravenous adenosine 140 mcg/kg per minute via a central femoral vein. Offline analysis was performed to calculate aortic (Pa), distal intracoronary (Pd), and reservoir (Pr) pressure at baseline, peak, and stable hyperemia. Seven different hemodynamic patterns were observed according to Pa and Pd change at peak and stable hyperemia. The average time from baseline to stable hyperemia was 68.2±38.5 seconds, when both ΔPa and ΔPd were decreased (ΔPa, -10.2±10.5 mm Hg; ΔPd, -18.2±10.8 mm Hg; P<0.001 for both). The fall in Pa closely correlated with the reduction in peripheral Pr (ΔPr, -12.9±15.7 mm Hg; P<0.001; r=0.9; P<0.001). ΔPa and ΔPd were closely related under conditions of peak (r=0.75; P<0.001) and stable hyperemia (r=0.83; P<0.001). On average, 56% (10.2 mm Hg) of the reduction in Pd was because of fall in Pa. FFR lesion classification changed in 9% using an FFR threshold of ≤0.80 and 5.2% with FFR threshold <0.75 when comparing Pd/Pa at peak and stable hyperemia. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous adenosine results in variable changes in systemic blood pressure, which can lead to alterations in FFR lesion classification. Attention is required to ensure FFR is measured under conditions of stable hyperemia, although the FFR value at this point may be numerically higher.

Improvement in coronary haemodynamics after percutaneous coronary intervention: assessment using instantaneous wave-free ratio.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) can detect improvement in stenosis significance after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and compare this with fractional flow reserve (FFR) and whole cycle Pd/Pa. DESIGN: A prospective observational study was undertaken in elective patients scheduled for PCI with FFR ≤ 0.80. Intracoronary pressures were measured at rest and during adenosine-mediated vasodilatation, before and after PCI. iFR, Pd/Pa and FFR values were calculated using the validated fully automated algorithms. SETTING: Coronary catheter laboratories in two UK centres and one in the USA. PATIENTS: 120 coronary stenoses in 112 patients were assessed. The mean age was 63 ± 10 years, while 84% were male; 39% smokers; 33% with diabetes. Mean diameter stenosis was 68 ± 16% by quantitative coronary angiography. RESULTS: Pre-PCI, mean FFR was 0.66 ± 0.14, mean iFR was 0.75 ± 0.21 and mean Pd/Pa 0.83 ± 0.16. PCI increased all indices significantly (FFR 0.89 ± 0.07, p<0.001; iFR 0.94 ± 0.05, p<0.001; Pd/Pa 0.96 ± 0.04, p<0.001). The change in iFR after intervention (0.20 ± 0.21) was similar to ΔFFR 0.22 ± 0.15 (p=0.25). ΔFFR and ΔiFR were significantly larger than resting ΔPd/Pa (0.13 ± 0.16, both p<0.001). Similar incremental changes occurred in patients with a higher prevalence of risk factors for microcirculatory disease such as diabetes and hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: iFR and FFR detect the changes in coronary haemodynamics elicited by PCI. FFR and iFR have a significantly larger dynamic range than resting Pd/Pa. iFR might be used to objectively document improvement in coronary haemodynamics following PCI in a similar manner to FFR.

Diagnostic classification of the instantaneous wave-free ratio is equivalent to fractional flow reserve and is not improved with adenosine administration. Results of CLARIFY (Classification Accuracy of Pressure-Only Ratios Against Indices Using Flow Study).

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine if adenosine administration is required for the pressure-only assessment of coronary stenoses. BACKGROUND: The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is a vasodilator-free pressure-only measure of the hemodynamic severity of a coronary stenosis comparable to fractional flow reserve (FFR) in diagnostic categorization. In this study, we used hyperemic stenosis resistance (HSR), a combined pressure-and-flow index, as an arbiter to determine when iFR and FFR disagree which index is most representative of the hemodynamic significance of the stenosis. We then test whether administering adenosine significantly improves diagnostic performance of iFR. METHODS: In 51 vessels, intracoronary pressure and flow velocity was measured distal to the stenosis at rest and during adenosine-mediated hyperemia. The iFR (at rest and during adenosine administration [iFRa]), FFR, HSR, baseline, and hyperemic microvascular resistance were calculated using automated algorithms. RESULTS: When iFR and FFR disagreed (4 cases, or 7.7% of the study population), HSR agreed with iFR in 50% of cases and with FFR in 50% of cases. Differences in magnitude of microvascular resistance did not influence diagnostic categorization; iFR, iFRa, and FFR had equally good diagnostic agreement with HSR (receiver-operating characteristic area under the curve 0.93 iFR vs. 0.94 iFRa and 0.96 FFR, p = 0.48). CONCLUSIONS: iFR and FFR had equivalent agreement with classification of coronary stenosis severity by HSR. Further reduction in resistance by the administration of adenosine did not improve diagnostic categorization, indicating that iFR can be used as an adenosine-free alternative to FFR.

Hybrid iFR-FFR decision-making strategy: implications for enhancing universal adoption of physiology-guided coronary revascularisation.

AIMS: Adoption of fractional flow reserve (FFR) remains low (6-8%), partly because of the time, cost and potential inconvenience associated with vasodilator administration. The instantaneous wave-Free Ratio (iFR) is a pressure-only index of stenosis severity calculated without vasodilator drugs. Before outcome trials test iFR as a sole guide to revascularisation, we evaluate the merits of a hybrid iFR-FFR decision-making strategy for universal physiological assessment. METHODS AND RESULTS: Coronary pressure traces from 577 stenoses were analysed. iFR was calculated as the ratio between Pd and Pa in the resting diastolic wave-free window. A hybrid iFR-FFR strategy was evaluated, by allowing iFR to defer some stenoses (where negative predictive value is high) and treat others (where positive predictive value is high), with adenosine being given only to patients with iFR in between those values. For the most recent fixed FFR cut-off (0.8), an iFR of <0.86 could be used to confirm treatment (PPV of 92%), whilst an iFR value of >0.93 could be used to defer revascularisation (NPV of 91%). Limiting vasodilator drugs to cases with iFR values between 0.86 to 0.93 would obviate the need for vasodilator drugs in 57% of patients, whilst maintaining 95% agreement with an FFR-only strategy. If the 0.75-0.8 FFR grey zone is accounted for, vasodilator drug requirement would decrease by 76%. CONCLUSION: A hybrid iFR-FFR decision-making strategy for revascularisation could increase adoption of physiology-guided PCI, by more than halving the need for vasodilator administration, whilst maintaining high classification agreement with an FFR-only strategy.