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.

Cost Analysis From a Randomized Comparison of Immediate Versus Delayed Angiography After Cardiac Arrest.

Background In patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST-segment elevation, immediate coronary angiography did not improve clinical outcomes when compared with delayed angiography in the COACT (Coronary Angiography After Cardiac Arrest) trial. Whether 1 of the 2 strategies has benefits in terms of health care resource use and costs is currently unknown. We assess the health care resource use and costs in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods and Results A total of 538 patients were randomly assigned to a strategy of either immediate or delayed coronary angiography. Detailed health care resource use and cost-prices were collected from the initial hospital episode. A generalized linear model and a gamma distribution were performed. Generic quality of life was measured with the RAND-36 and collected at 12-month follow-up. Overall total mean costs were similar between both groups (EUR 33 575±19 612 versus EUR 33 880±21 044; P=0.86). Generalized linear model: (ß, 0.991; 95% CI, 0.894-1.099; P=0.86). Mean procedural costs (coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass graft) were higher in the immediate angiography group (EUR 4384±3447 versus EUR 3028±4220; P<0.001). Costs concerning intensive care unit and ward stay did not show any significant difference. The RAND-36 questionnaire did not differ between both groups. Conclusions The mean total costs between patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest randomly assigned to an immediate angiography or a delayed invasive strategy were similar during the initial hospital stay. With respect to the higher invasive procedure costs in the immediate group, a strategy awaiting neurological recovery followed by coronary angiography and planned revascularization may be considered. Registration URL: https://trialregister.nl; Unique identifier: NL4857.

Quantitative flow ratio for immediate assessment of nonculprit lesions in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-An iSTEMI substudy.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the diagnostic performance of quantitative flow ratio (QFR) assessment of nonculprit lesions (NCLs) based on acute setting angiograms obtained in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with QFR, fractional flow reserve (FFR), and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) in the staged setting as reference. BACKGROUND: QFR is an angiography-based approach for the functional evaluation of coronary artery lesions. METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of the iSTEMI study. NCLs were assessed with iFR in the acute setting and with iFR and FFR at staged (median 13 days) follow-up. Acute and staged QFR values were computed in a core laboratory based on the coronary angiography recordings. Diagnostic cut-off values were ≤0.80 for QFR and FFR, and ≤0.89 for iFR. RESULTS: Staged iFR and FFR data were available for 146 NCLs in 112 patients in the iSTEMI study. Among these, QFR analysis was feasible in 103 (71%) lesions assessed in the acute setting with a mean QFR value of 0.82 (IQR: 0.73-0.91). Staged QFR, FFR, and iFR were 0.80 (IQR: 0.70-0.90), 0.81 (IQR: 0.71-0.88), and 0.91 (IQR: 0.87-0.96), respectively. Classification agreement of acute and staged QFR was 93% (95%Cl: 87-99). The classification agreement of acute QFR was 84% (95%CI: 76-90) using staged FFR as reference and 74% (95%CI: 65-83) using staged iFR as reference. CONCLUSIONS: Acute QFR showed a very good diagnostic performance with staged QFR as reference, a good diagnostic performance with staged FFR as reference, and a moderate diagnostic performance with staged iFR as reference.

Influence of Microcirculatory Dysfunction on Angiography-Based Functional Assessment of Coronary Stenoses.

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the influence of coronary microcirculatory dysfunction (CMD) on the diagnostic performance of the quantitative flow ratio (QFR). BACKGROUND: Functional angiographic assessment of coronary stenoses based on fluid dynamics, such as QFR, constitutes an attractive alternative to fractional flow reserve (FFR). However, it is unknown whether CMD affects the reliability of angiography-based functional indices. METHODS: FFR and the index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) were measured in 300 vessels (248 patients) as part of a multicenter international registry. QFR was calculated at a blinded core laboratory. Vessels were classified into 2 groups according to microcirculatory status: low IMR (<23 U), and high IMR (≥23 U, CMD). The impact of CMD on the diagnostic performance of QFR, as well as on incremental value of QFR over quantitative angiography, was assessed using FFR as reference. RESULTS: Percent diameter stenosis (%DS) and FFR were similar in low- and high-IMR groups (%DS 51 ± 12% vs. 53 ± 11%; p = 0.16; FFR 0.80 ± 0.11 vs. 0.81 ± 0.11; p = 0.23, respectively). In the overall cohort, classification agreement (CA) between QFR and FFR and diagnostic efficiency of QFR (area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve [AUC]) were high (CA: 88%; AUC: 0.93 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.90 to 0.96]). However, when assessed according to microcirculatory status, a significantly lower CA and AUC of QFR were found in the high-IMR group as compared with the low-IMR group (CA: 76% vs. 92%; p < 0.001; AUC: 0.88 [95% CI: 0.79 to 0.94] vs. 0.96 [95% CI: 0.92 to 0.98]; p < 0.05). Compared with angiographic assessment, QFR increased by 0.20 (p < 0.001) and by 0.16 (p < 0.001) the AUC of %DS in low- and high-IMR groups, respectively. Independent predictors of misclassification between QFR and FFR were high IMR and acute coronary syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: CMD decreases the diagnostic performance of QFR. However, even in the presence of CMD, QFR remains superior to angiography alone in ascertaining functional stenosis severity.