Sex Differences in Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Revascularization Strategy.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate sex differences in procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR)- and fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided revascularization strategies. BACKGROUND: An iFR-guided strategy has shown a lower revascularization rate than an FFR-guided strategy, without differences in clinical outcomes. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate stenosis to guide Revascularization) study, in which 601 women and 1,891 men were randomized to iFR- or FFR-guided strategy. The primary endpoint was 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. RESULTS: Among the entire population, women had a lower number of functionally significant lesions per patient (0.31 ± 0.51 vs. 0.43 ± 0.59; p < 0.001) and less frequently underwent revascularization than men (42.1% vs. 53.1%; p < 0.001). There was no difference in mean iFR value according to sex (0.91 ± 0.09 vs. 0.91 ± 0.10; p = 0.442). However, the mean FFR value was lower in men than in women (0.83 ± 0.09 vs. 0.85 ± 0.10; p = 0.001). In men, an FFR-guided strategy was associated with a higher rate of revascularization than an iFR-guided strategy (57.1% vs. 49.3%; p = 0.001), but this difference was not observed in women (41.4% vs. 42.6%; p = 0.757). There was no difference in MACE rates between iFR- and FFR-guided strategies in both women (5.4% vs. 5.6%, adjusted hazard ratio: 1.10; 95% confidence interval: 0.50 to 2.43; p = 0.805) and men (6.6% vs. 7.0%, adjusted hazard ratio: 0.98; 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 1.46; p = 0.919). CONCLUSIONS: An FFR-guided strategy was associated with a higher rate of revascularization than iFR-guided strategy in men, but not in women. However, iFR- and FFR-guided strategies showed comparable clinical outcomes, regardless of sex. (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to guide Revascularization [DEFINE-FLAIR]; NCT02053038).

Clinical Events After Deferral of LAD Revascularization Following Physiological Coronary Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Physicians are not always comfortable deferring treatment of a stenosis in the left anterior descending (LAD) artery because of the perception that there is a high risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). The authors describe, using the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) trial, MACE rates when LAD lesions are deferred, guided by physiological assessment using fractional flow reserve (FFR) or the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to establish the safety of deferring treatment in the LAD using FFR or iFR within the DEFINE-FLAIR trial. METHODS: MACE rates at 1 year were compared between groups (iFR and FFR) in patients whose physiological assessment led to LAD lesions being deferred. MACE was defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and unplanned revascularization at 1 year. Patients, and staff performing follow-up, were blinded to whether the decision was made with FFR or iFR. Outcomes were adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS: A total of 872 patients had lesions deferred in the LAD (421 guided by FFR, 451 guided by iFR). The event rate with iFR was significantly lower than with FFR (2.44% vs. 5.26%; adjusted HR: 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22 to 0.95; p = 0.04). This was driven by significantly lower unplanned revascularization with iFR and numerically lower MI (unplanned revascularization: 2.22% iFR vs. 4.99% FFR; adjusted HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.93; p = 0.03; MI: 0.44% iFR vs. 2.14% FFR; adjusted HR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.07; p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: iFR-guided deferral appears to be safe for patients with LAD lesions. Patients in whom iFR-guided deferral was performed had statistically significantly lower event rates than those with FFR-guided deferral.

Continuum of Vasodilator Stress From Rest to Contrast Medium to Adenosine Hyperemia for Fractional Flow Reserve Assessment.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared the diagnostic performance with adenosine-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) ≤0.8 of contrast-based FFR (cFFR), resting distal pressure (Pd)/aortic pressure (Pa), and the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). BACKGROUND: FFR objectively identifies lesions that benefit from medical therapy versus revascularization. However, FFR requires maximal vasodilation, usually achieved with adenosine. Radiographic contrast injection causes submaximal coronary hyperemia. Therefore, intracoronary contrast could provide an easy and inexpensive tool for predicting FFR. METHODS: We recruited patients undergoing routine FFR assessment and made paired, repeated measurements of all physiology metrics (Pd/Pa, iFR, cFFR, and FFR). Contrast medium and dose were per local practice, as was the dose of intracoronary adenosine. Operators were encouraged to perform both intracoronary and intravenous adenosine assessments and a final drift check to assess wire calibration. A central core lab analyzed blinded pressure tracings in a standardized fashion. RESULTS: A total of 763 subjects were enrolled from 12 international centers. Contrast volume was 8 ± 2 ml per measurement, and 8 different contrast media were used. Repeated measurements of each metric showed a bias <0.005, but a lower SD (less variability) for cFFR than resting indexes. Although Pd/Pa and iFR demonstrated equivalent performance against FFR ≤0.8 (78.5% vs. 79.9% accuracy; p = 0.78; area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve: 0.875 vs. 0.881; p = 0.35), cFFR improved both metrics (85.8% accuracy and 0.930 area; p < 0.001 for each) with an optimal binary threshold of 0.83. A hybrid decision-making strategy using cFFR required adenosine less often than when based on either Pd/Pa or iFR. CONCLUSIONS: cFFR provides diagnostic performance superior to that of Pd/Pa or iFR for predicting FFR. For clinical scenarios or health care systems in which adenosine is contraindicated or prohibitively expensive, cFFR offers a universal technique to simplify invasive coronary physiological assessments. Yet FFR remains the reference standard for diagnostic certainty as even cFFR reached only ∼85% agreement.