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.

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.