Impact of core laboratory assessment on treatment decisions and clinical outcomes using combined fractional flow reserve and coronary flow reserve measurements - DEFINE-FLOW core laboratory sub-study.

OBJECTIVE: The role of combined FFR/CFR measurements in decision-making on coronary revascularization remains unclear. DEFINE-FLOW prospectively assessed the relationship of FFR/CFR agreement with 2-year major adverse cardiac event (MACE) and target vessel failure (TVF) rates, and uniquely included core-laboratory analysis of all pressure and flow tracings. We aimed to document the impact of core-laboratory analysis on lesion classification, and the relationship between core-laboratory fractional flow reserve (FFR) and coronary flow reserve (CFR) values with clinical outcomes and angina burden during follow-up. METHODS: In 398 vessels (348 patients) considered for intervention, ≥1 coronary pressure/flow tracing was approved by the core-laboratory. Revascularization was performed only when both FFR(≤0.80) and CFR(<2.0) were abnormal, all others were treated medically. RESULTS: MACE was lowest for concordant normal FFR/CFR, but was not significantly different compared with either discordant group (low FFR/normal CFR: HR:1.63; 95%CI:0.61-4.40; P = 0.33; normal FFR/low CFR: HR:1.81; 95%CI:0.66-4.98; P = 0.25). Moreover, MACE did not differ between discordant groups treated medically and the concordant abnormal group undergoing revascularization (normal FFR/low CFR: HR:0.63; 95%CI:0.23-1.73;P = 0.37; normal FFR/low CFR: HR:0.70; 95%CI:0.22-2.21;P = 0.54). Similar findings applied to TVF. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with concordantly normal FFR/CFR have very low 2-year MACE and TVF rates. Throughout follow-up, there were no differences in event rates between patients in whom revascularization was deferred due to preserved CFR despite reduced FFR, and those in whom PCI was performed due to concordantly low FFR and CFR. These findings question the need for routine revascularization in vessels showing low FFR but preserved CFR. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://ClinicalTrials.govNCT02328820.

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.