Physiological Assessment with iFR prior to FFR Measurement in Left Main Disease.

Despite guideline-based recommendation of the interchangeable use of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide revascularization decision-making, iFR/FFR could demonstrate different physiological or clinical outcomes in some specific patient or lesion subsets. Therefore, we sought to investigate the impact of difference between iFR and FFR-guided revascularization decision-making on clinical outcomes in patients with left main disease (LMD). In this international multicenter registry of LMD with physiological interrogation, we identified 275 patients in whom physiological assessment was performed with both iFR/FFR. Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) was defined as a composite of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The receiver-operating characteristic analysis was performed for both iFR/FFR to predict MACE in respective patients in whom revascularization was deferred and performed. In 153 patients of revascularization deferral, MACE occurred in 17.0% patients. The optimal cut-off values of iFR and FFR to predict MACE were 0.88 (specificity:0.74; sensitivity:0.65) and 0.76 (specificity:0.81; sensitivity:0.46), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) was significantly higher for iFR than FFR (0.74; 95%CI 0.62-0.85 vs. 0.62; 95%CI 0.48-0.75; p = 0.012). In 122 patients of coronary revascularization, MACE occurred in 13.1% patients. The optimal cut-off values of iFR and FFR were 0.92 (specificity:0.93; sensitivity:0.25) and 0.81 (specificity:0.047; sensitivity:1.00), respectively. The AUCs were not significantly different between iFR and FFR (0.57; 95%CI 0.40-0.73 vs. 0.46; 95%CI 0.31-0.61; p = 0.43). While neither baseline iFR nor FFR was predictive of MACE in patients in whom revascularization was performed, iFR-guided deferral seemed to be safer than FFR-guided deferral.

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.

Angiography-derived functional assessment of left main coronary stenoses.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of quantitative flow ratio (QFR) in left main (LM) coronary stenoses, using Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) as reference. BACKGROUND: QFR has demonstrated a high accuracy in determining the functional relevance of coronary stenoses in non-LM. However, there is an important paucity of data regarding its diagnostic value in the specific anatomical subset of LM disease. METHODS: This is a retrospective, observational, multicenter, international, and blinded study including patients with LM stenoses. Cases with significant ostial LM disease were excluded. QFR was calculated from conventional angiograms at blinded fashion with respect to FFR. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients with LM stenoses were analyzed. Overall, LM had intermediate severity, both from angiographic (diameter stenosis [%DS] 43.8 ± 11.1%) and functional perspective (FFR 0.756 ± 0.105). Mean QFR was 0.733 ± 0.159. Correlation between QFR and FFR was moderate (r = 0.590). Positive and negative predictive value, sensitivity and specificity were 85.4%, 64%, 85.4%, and 69.6% respectively. Classification agreement of QFR and FFR in terms of functional stenosis severity was 78.1%. Area under the receiver operating characteristics of QFR using FFR as reference was 0.82 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.93], and significantly better than angiographic evaluation including %DS (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve [AUC] 0.45 [95% CI, 0.32-0.58], p < 0.001) and minimum lumen diameter (AUC 0.60 [95% CI, 0.47-0.74], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with FFR, QFR has acceptable diagnostic performance in determining the functional relevance of LM stenosis, being better than conventional angiographic assessment. Nonetheless, caution should be taken when applying functional angiography techniques for the assessment of LM stenosis given its particular anatomical characteristics.

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.

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).

Angiography-derived functional assessment of non-culprit coronary stenoses in primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

AIMS: Functional assessment of non-culprit lesions (NCL) in patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease constitutes an unmet need. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of quantitative flow ratio (QFR) in the functional assessment of NCL during the acute phase of STEMI. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a retrospective, observational, multicentre study including patients with STEMI and staged fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment of NCL. QFR in NCL was calculated from the coronary angiogram acquired during primary PCI in a blinded fashion with respect to FFR. The diagnostic value of QFR in the STEMI population was compared with a propensity score-matched population of stable angina patients. Eighty-two patients (91 NCL) were included. Target lesions were of both angiographic and functional (mean FFR 0.82±0.09) intermediate severity. The diagnostic performance of QFR was high (AUC 0.91 [95% CI: 0.85-0.97]) and similar to that observed in the matched control population (AUC 0.91 vs 0.94, p=0.5). The diagnostic accuracy of QFR was very high (>95%) in those vessels (61.5%) with QFR values out of a ROC-defined "grey zone" (0.75-0.85). A hybrid FFR/QFR approach (FFR only when QFR is in the grey zone) would adequately classify 96.7% of NCL, avoiding 58.5% of repeat diagnostic procedures. CONCLUSIONS: QFR has a good diagnostic accuracy in assessing the functional relevance of NCL during primary PCI, similar to the accuracy observed in stable patients.