Effect of Sex Difference of Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction on Long-Term Outcomes in Deferred Lesions.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the sex difference of long-term cardiovascular outcomes on coronary flow reserve (CFR) and index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) in patients with deferred coronary artery lesions. BACKGROUND: Coronary microvascular dysfunction is associated with poorer long-term outcomes. It can be assessed by CFR and the IMR. METHODS: The study prospectively enrolled 434 patients (133 women and 301 men) and analyzed CFR, IMR, fractional flow reserve, and quantitative coronary angiography. Clinical outcomes were assessed by major adverse cardiovascular event(s) (MACE) of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization during 5 years of follow-up. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board or Ethics Committee at each participating center, and all patients provided written informed consent. The study protocol was in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. RESULTS: Women had milder epicardial disease compared with men (fractional flow reserve: 0.91 [interquartile range (IQR): 0.87 to 0.96] vs. 0.90 [IQR: 0.86 to 0.95]; p = 0.037). IMR was similar between the sexes, but CFR was lower in women (2.69 [IQR: 2.08 to 3.90] vs. 3.20 [IQR: 2.20 to 4.31]; p = 0.006) due to a shorter resting mean transit time, whereas hyperemic mean transit times were similar. At 5-year follow-up, MACE was significantly lower in women compared with men (1.1% vs. 5.5%; p = 0.017). Sex, diabetes mellitus, and CFR were independent predictors for MACE for all patients. The risk of MACE was significantly higher in men with low versus high CFR (hazard ratio: 4.58; 95% confidence interval: 1.85 to 11.30; p = 0.011) which was not seen in women. CONCLUSIONS: There was no sex difference in microvascular function by IMR. CFR was lower in women due to a higher resting coronary flow; however, long-term clinical outcomes in deferred lesions were better in women compared with men. (Clinical, Physiological and Prognostic Implication of Microvascular Status; NCT02186093).

Sex Differences in Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With Deferred Revascularization Following Fractional Flow Reserve Assessment: International Collaboration Registry of Comprehensive Physiologic Evaluation.

Background Sex-specific differences may influence prognosis after deferred revascularization following fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement. This study sought to investigate the sex differences in long-term prognosis of patients with deferred revascularization following FFR assessment. Methods and Results A total of 879 patients (879 vessels) with deferred revascularization with FFR >0.75 who underwent FFR and coronary flow reserve measurements were enrolled from 3 countries (Korea, Japan, and Spain). Long-term outcomes were assessed in 649 men and 230 women by the patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO, a composite of any death, any myocardial infarction, and any revascularization). We applied inverse-probability weighting based on propensity scores to account for differences at baseline between women and men (age, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, diameter stenosis, lesion length, multivessel disease, FFR, coronary flow reserve. The median follow-up duration was 1855 days (745-1855 days). Median FFR values were 0.88 (0.83-0.93) in men and 0.89 (0.85-0.94) in women, respectively. The occurrences of POCO were significantly high in men compared with that in women (10.5% versus 4.2%, P=0.007). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that women had a significantly lower risk of POCO (χ2=7.2, P=0.007). Multivariate COX proportional hazards regression analysis revealed that age, male, diabetes mellitus, diameter stenosis, lesion length, and coronary flow reserve were independent predictors of POCO. After applying IPW, the hazard ratio of males for POCO was 2.07 (95% CI, 1.07-4.04, P=0.032). Conclusions This large multinational study reveals that long-term outcome differs between women and men in favor of women after FFR-guided revascularization deferral. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02186093.

Physiological and Clinical Assessment of Resting Physiological Indexes.

BACKGROUND: Recently, resting pressure-derived indexes such as resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) and diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) have been introduced to assess the functional significance of epicardial coronary stenosis. The present study sought to investigate the agreement of RFR or dPR with other pressure-derived indexes (instantaneous wave-free ratio [iFR] or fractional flow reserve), the sensitivity of RFR or dPR for anatomic or hemodynamic stenosis severity, and the prognostic implications of RFR or dPR compared with iFR Methods: RFR and dPR were calculated from resting pressure tracings by an independent core laboratory in 1024 vessels (435 patients). The changes in resting physiological indexes according to diameter stenosis were compared among iFR, RFR, and dPR. Among 115 patients who underwent 13N-ammonia positron emission tomography, the changes in those indexes according to basal and hyperemic stenosis resistance and absolute hyperemic myocardial blood flow were compared. The association between resting physiological indexes and the risk of 2-year vessel-oriented composite outcomes (a composite of cardiac death, vessel-related myocardial infarction, and vessel-related ischemia-driven revascularization) was analyzed among 864 deferred vessels. RESULTS: Both RFR and dPR showed a significant correlation with iFR ( R=0.979, P<0.001 for RFR; and R=0.985, P<0.001 for dPR), which was higher than that with fractional flow reserve ( R=0.822, P<0.001; and R=0.819, P<0.001, respectively). RFR and dPR showed a very high agreement with iFR (C index, 0.987 and 0.993). Percent difference of iFR, RFR, and dPR according to the increase in anatomic and hemodynamic severity was almost identical. The diagnostic performance of iFR, RFR, and dPR was not different in the prediction of myocardial ischemia defined by both low hyperemic myocardial blood flow and low coronary flow reserve by 13N-ammonia positron emission tomography. All resting physiological indexes showed significant association with the risk of 2-year vessel-oriented composite outcomes (iFR per 0.1 increase: hazard ratio, 0.514 [95% CI, 0.370-0.715], P<0.001; RFR per 0.1 increase: hazard ratio, 0.524 [95% CI, 0.378-0.725], P<0.001; dPR per 0.1 increase: hazard ratio, 0.587 [95% CI, 0.436-0.791], P<0.001) in deferred vessels. CONCLUSIONS: All resting pressure-derived physiological indexes (iFR, RFR, and dPR) can be used as invasive tools to guide treatment strategy in patients with coronary artery disease. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01621438.