Impact of sex on the assessment of the microvascular resistance reserve.

BACKGROUND: The microvascular resistance reserve (MRR) is an innovative index to assess the vasodilatory capacity of the coronary circulation while accounting for the presence of concomitant epicardial disease. The MRR has shown to be a valuable diagnostic and prognostic tool in the general coronary artery disease (CAD) population. However, considering the fundamental aspects of its assessment and the unique hemodynamic characteristics of women, it is crucial to provide additional considerations for evaluating the MRR specifically in women. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic and prognostic applicability of the MRR in women and assess the potential differences across different sexes. METHODS: From the ILIAS Registry, we enrolled all patients with a stable indication for invasive coronary angiography, ensuring complete physiological and follow-up data. We analyzed the diagnostic value by comparing differences between sexes and evaluated the prognostic value of the MRR specifically in women, comparing it to that in men. RESULTS: A total of 1494 patients were included of which 26% were women. The correlation between MRR and CFR was good and similar between women (r = 0.80, p < 0.005) and men (r = 0.81, p < 0.005). The MRR was an independent and important predictor of MACE in both women (HR 0.67, 0.47-0.96, p = 0.027) and men (HR 0.84, 0.74-0.95, p = 0.007). The optimal cut-off value for MRR in women was 2.8 and 3.2 in men. An abnormal MRR similarly predicted MACE at 5-year follow-up in both women and men. CONCLUSION: The MRR seems to be equally applicable in both women and men with stable coronary artery disease.

Combined Assessment of FFR and CFR for Decision Making in Coronary Revascularization: From the Multicenter International ILIAS Registry.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to demonstrate the clinical implications of combined assessment of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and coronary flow reserve (CFR). BACKGROUND: Combined assessment of FFR and CFR allows detailed characterization of pathophysiology in chronic coronary syndromes. Data on the clinical implications of distinct FFR and CFR patterns are limited, leading to uncertainty regarding their relevance. METHODS: Patients with chronic coronary syndromes and obstructive coronary artery disease were selected from the multicenter ILIAS (Inclusive Invasive Physiological Assessment in Angina Syndromes) registry. Patients were classified into 4 groups on the basis of FFR ≤0.80 and CFR <2.0. The endpoint was the 5-year target vessel failure (TVF) rate. RESULTS: A total of 2,143 patients with 2,725 lesions were included. Compared with normal FFR/normal CFR, low FFR/low CFR carried the highest risk for TVF (HR: 5.4; 95% CI: 3.2-9.3; P < 0.001), significantly higher than in revascularized vessels (P = 0.007). Discordance, with either low FFR/normal CFR or normal FFR/low CFR, was associated with increased TVF rates compared with normal FFR/normal CFR (low FFR/normal CFR: HR: 3.5 [95% CI: 2.2-5.4; P < 0.001]; normal FFR/low CFR: HR: 3.0 [95% CI: 1.9-4.7; P < 0.001]). No difference in 5-year TVF was observed between the 2 discordant groups (P = 0.57) or between the discordant groups and the revascularized group (P = 0.26 vs low FFR/normal CFR; P = 0.60 vs normal FFR/low CFR). CONCLUSIONS: Impaired coronary hemodynamics are uniformly associated with increased 5-year TVF rates. Nonrevascularized vessels with discordant FFR and CFR are associated with 5-year event rates that are equivalent to those of vessels that undergo revascularization, whereas vessels with combined low FFR and CFR exhibit event rates that are significantly higher than after revascularization. (Inclusive Invasive Physiological Assessment in Angina Syndromes Registry [ILIAS Registry]; NCT04485234).

1-Year Outcomes of Blinded Physiological Assessment of Residual Ischemia After Successful PCI: DEFINE PCI Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify the post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) target value of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) that would best discriminate clinical events at 1 year in the DEFINE PCI (Physiologic Assessment of Coronary Stenosis Following PCI) study. BACKGROUND: The impact of residual ischemia detected by iFR post-PCI on clinical and symptom-related outcomes is unknown. METHODS: Blinded iFR pull back was performed after successful stent implantation in 500 patients. The primary endpoint was the rate of residual ischemia, defined as iFR ≤0.89, after operator-assessed angiographically successful PCI. Secondary endpoints included clinical events at 1 year and change in Seattle Angina Questionnaire angina frequency (SAQ-AF) score during follow-up. RESULTS: As reported, 24.0% of patients had residual ischemia (iFR ≤0.89) after successful PCI, with 81.6% of cases attributable to angiographically inapparent focal lesions. Post-PCI iFR ≥0.95 (present in 182 cases [39%]) was associated with a significant reduction in the composite of cardiac death, spontaneous myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization compared with post-PCI iFR <0.95 (1.8% vs 5.7%; P = 0.04). Baseline SAQ-AF score was 73.3 ± 22.8. For highly symptomatic patients (baseline SAQ-AF score ≤60), SAQ-AF score increased by ≥10 points more frequently in patients with versus without post-PCI iFR ≥0.95 (100.0% vs 88.5%; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In DEFINE PCI, despite angiographically successful PCI, highly symptomatic patients at baseline without residual ischemia by post-PCI iFR had greater reductions in anginal symptoms at 1 year compared with patients with residual ischemia. Achieving post-PCI iFR ≥0.95 was also associated with improved 1-year event-free survival. (Physiologic Assessment of Coronary Stenosis Following PCI [DEFINE PCI]; NCT03084367).

Individual Lesion-Level Meta-Analysis Comparing Various Doses of Intracoronary Bolus Injection of Adenosine With Intravenous Administration of Adenosine for Fractional Flow Reserve Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous infusion of adenosine is considered standard practice for fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment but is associated with adverse side-effects and is time-consuming. Intracoronary bolus injection of adenosine is better tolerated by patients, cheaper, and less time-consuming. However, current literature remains fragmented and modestly sized regarding the equivalence of intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine. We aim to investigate the relationship between intracoronary adenosine and intravenous adenosine to determine FFR. METHODS: We performed a lesion-level meta-analysis to compare intracoronary adenosine with intravenous adenosine (140 µg/kg per minute) for FFR assessment. The search was conducted in accordance to the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. Lesion-level data were obtained by contacting the respective authors or by digitization of scatterplots using custom-made software. Intracoronary adenosine dose was defined as; low: <40 µg, intermediate: 40 to 99 µg, and high: ≥100 µg. RESULTS: We collected 1972 FFR measurements (1413 lesions) comparing intracoronary with intravenous adenosine from 16 studies. There was a strong correlation (correlation coefficient =0.915; P<0.001) between intracoronary-FFR and intravenous-FFR. Mean FFR was 0.81±0.11 for intracoronary adenosine and 0.81±0.11 for intravenous adenosine (P<0.001). We documented a nonclinically relevant mean difference of 0.006 (limits of agreement: -0.066 to 0.078) between the methods. When stratified by the intracoronary adenosine dose, mean differences between intracoronary and intravenous-FFR amounted to 0.004, 0.011, or 0.000 FFR units for low-dose, intermediate-dose, and high-dose intracoronary adenosine, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The present study documents clinically irrelevant differences in FFR values obtained with intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine. Intracoronary adenosine hence confers a practical and patient-friendly alternative for intravenous adenosine for FFR assessment.

Blinded Physiological Assessment of Residual Ischemia After Successful Angiographic Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The DEFINE PCI Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the incidence and causes of an abnormal instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) after angiographically successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: Impaired coronary physiology as assessed by fractional flow reserve is present in some patients after PCI and is prognostically relevant. METHODS: DEFINE PCI (Physiologic Assessment of Coronary Stenosis Following PCI) was a multicenter, prospective, observational study in which a blinded iFR pull back was performed after angiographically successful PCI in 562 vessels in 500 patients. Inclusion criteria were angina with either multivessel or multilesion coronary artery disease with an abnormal baseline iFR. The primary endpoint of the study was the rate of residual ischemia after operator-assessed angiographically successful PCI, defined as an iFR <0.90. The causes of impaired iFR were categorized as stent related, untreated proximal or distal focal stenosis, or diffuse atherosclerosis. RESULTS: An average of 1.1 vessels per patient had abnormal baseline iFRs, with a mean value of 0.69 ± 0.22, which improved to 0.93 ± 0.07 post-PCI. Residual ischemia after angiographically successful PCI was present in 112 patients (24.0%), with a mean iFR in that population of 0.84 ± 0.06 (range 0.60 to 0.89). Among patients with impaired post-PCI iFRs, 81.6% had untreated focal stenoses that were angiographically inapparent, and 18.4% had diffuse disease. Among the focal lesions, 38.4% were located within the stent segment, while 31.5% were proximal and 30.1% were distal to the stent. Post-PCI vessel angiographic diameter stenosis was not a predictor of impaired post-procedural iFR. CONCLUSIONS: Blinded post-PCI physiological assessment detected residual ischemia in nearly 1 in 4 patients after coronary stenting despite an operator-determined angiographically successful result. Most cases of residual ischemia were due to inapparent focal lesions potentially amenable to treatment with additional PCI. (Physiologic Assessment of Coronary Stenosis Following PCI [DEFINE PCI]; NCT03084367).

Does the instantaneous wave-free ratio approximate the fractional flow reserve?

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the clinical performance of and theoretical basis for the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) approximation to the fractional flow reserve (FFR). BACKGROUND: Recent work has proposed iFR as a vasodilation-free alternative to FFR for making mechanical revascularization decisions. Its fundamental basis is the assumption that diastolic resting myocardial resistance equals mean hyperemic resistance. METHODS: Pressure-only and combined pressure-flow clinical data from several centers were studied both empirically and by using pressure-flow physiology. A Monte Carlo simulation was performed by repeatedly selecting random parameters as if drawing from a cohort of hypothetical patients, using the reported ranges of these physiologic variables. RESULTS: We aggregated observations of 1,129 patients, including 120 with combined pressure-flow data. Separately, we performed 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations. Clinical data showed that iFR was +0.09 higher than FFR on average, with ±0.17 limits of agreement. Diastolic resting resistance was 2.5 ± 1.0 times higher than mean hyperemic resistance in patients. Without invoking wave mechanics, classic pressure-flow physiology explained clinical observations well, with a coefficient of determination of >0.9. Nearly identical scatter of iFR versus FFR was seen between simulation and patient observations, thereby supporting our model. CONCLUSIONS: iFR provides both a biased estimate of FFR, on average, and an uncertain estimate of FFR in individual cases. Diastolic resting myocardial resistance does not equal mean hyperemic resistance, thereby contravening the most basic condition on which iFR depends. Fundamental relationships of coronary pressure and flow explain the iFR approximation without invoking wave mechanics.