Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide PCI.

BACKGROUND: The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is an index used to assess the severity of coronary-artery stenosis. The index has been tested against fractional flow reserve (FFR) in small trials, and the two measures have been found to have similar diagnostic accuracy. However, studies of clinical outcomes associated with the use of iFR are lacking. We aimed to evaluate whether iFR is noninferior to FFR with respect to the rate of subsequent major adverse cardiac events. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label clinical trial using the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry for enrollment. A total of 2037 participants with stable angina or an acute coronary syndrome who had an indication for physiologically guided assessment of coronary-artery stenosis were randomly assigned to undergo revascularization guided by either iFR or FFR. The primary end point was the rate of a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization within 12 months after the procedure. RESULTS: A primary end-point event occurred in 68 of 1012 patients (6.7%) in the iFR group and in 61 of 1007 (6.1%) in the FFR group (difference in event rates, 0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.5 to 2.8; P=0.007 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.58; P=0.53); the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates fell within the prespecified noninferiority margin of 3.2 percentage points. The results were similar among major subgroups. The rates of myocardial infarction, target-lesion revascularization, restenosis, and stent thrombosis did not differ significantly between the two groups. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the FFR group than in the iFR group reported chest discomfort during the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable angina or an acute coronary syndrome, an iFR-guided revascularization strategy was noninferior to an FFR-guided revascularization strategy with respect to the rate of major adverse cardiac events at 12 months. (Funded by Philips Volcano; iFR SWEDEHEART ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02166736 .).

Bivalirudin versus Heparin Monotherapy in Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy of various anticoagulation strategies has not been clearly established in patients with acute myocardial infarction who are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) according to current practice, which includes the use of radial-artery access for PCI and administration of potent P2Y12 inhibitors without the planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, registry-based, open-label clinical trial, we enrolled patients with either ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI (NSTEMI) who were undergoing PCI and receiving treatment with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor (ticagrelor, prasugrel, or cangrelor) without the planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. The patients were randomly assigned to receive bivalirudin or heparin during PCI, which was performed predominantly with the use of radial-artery access. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or major bleeding during 180 days of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 6006 patients (3005 with STEMI and 3001 with NSTEMI) were enrolled in the trial. At 180 days, a primary end-point event had occurred in 12.3% of the patients (369 of 3004) in the bivalirudin group and in 12.8% (383 of 3002) in the heparin group (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.10; P=0.54). The results were consistent between patients with STEMI and those with NSTEMI and across other major subgroups. Myocardial infarction occurred in 2.0% of the patients in the bivalirudin group and in 2.4% in the heparin group (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.19; P=0.33), major bleeding in 8.6% and 8.6%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.19; P=0.98), definite stent thrombosis in 0.4% and 0.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.27 to 1.10; P=0.09), and death in 2.9% and 2.8%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.41; P=0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing PCI for myocardial infarction, the rate of the composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or major bleeding was not lower among those who received bivalirudin than among those who received heparin monotherapy. (Funded by the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation and others; VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu number, 2012-005260-10 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02311231 .).

5-Year Outcomes of PCI Guided by Measurement of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve.

BACKGROUND: Instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is a coronary physiology index used to assess the severity of coronary artery stenosis to guide revascularization. iFR has previously demonstrated noninferior short-term outcome compared to fractional flow reserve (FFR), but data on longer-term outcome have been lacking. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the prespecified 5-year follow-up of the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization of the iFR-SWEDEHEART trial comparing iFR vs FFR in patients with chronic and acute coronary syndromes. METHODS: iFR-SWEDEHEART was a multicenter, controlled, open-label, registry-based randomized clinical trial using the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry for enrollment. A total of 2,037 patients were randomized to undergo revascularization guided by iFR or FFR. RESULTS: No patients were lost to follow-up. At 5 years, the rate of the primary composite endpoint was 21.5% in the iFR group and 19.9% in the FFR group (HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.90-1.33). The rates of all-cause death (9.4% vs 7.9%; HR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.89-1.62), nonfatal myocardial infarction (5.7% vs 5.8%; HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.70-1.44), and unplanned revascularization (11.6% vs 11.3%; HR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.79-1.32) were also not different between the 2 groups. The outcomes were consistent across prespecified subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic or acute coronary syndromes, an iFR-guided revascularization strategy was associated with no difference in the 5-year composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization compared with an FFR-guided revascularization strategy. (Evaluation of iFR vs FFR in Stable Angina or Acute Coronary Syndrome [iFR SWEDEHEART]; NCT02166736).

Bivalirudin Versus Heparin Monotherapy in ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Bivalirudin was not superior to unfractionated heparin in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and no planned use of GPI (glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors) in contemporary clinical practice of radial access and potent P2Y12-inhibitors in the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART randomized clinical trial (Bivalirudin Versus Heparin in STEMI and NSTEMI Patients on Modern Antiplatelet Therapy-Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies Registry). METHODS: In this prespecified separately powered subgroup analysis, we included patients with ST-segment-elevation MI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with the primary composite end point of all-cause death, MI, or major bleeding event within 180 days. RESULTS: Among the 6006 patients enrolled in the trial, 3005 patients with ST-segment-elevation MI were randomized to receive bivalirudin or heparin. The mean age was 66.8 years. According to protocol recommendations, 87% were treated with potent oral P2Y12-inhibitors before start of angiography and radial access was used in 90%. GPI was used in 51 (3.4%) and 74 (4.9%) of patients randomized to receive bivalirudin and heparin, respectively. The primary end point occurred in 12.5% (187 of 1501) and 13.0% (196 of 1504; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95 [95% CI, 0.78-1.17], P=0.64) with consistent results in all major subgroups. All-cause death occurred in 3.9% versus 3.9% (HR, 1.00 [0.70-1.45], P=0.98), MI in 1.7% versus 2.2% (HR, 0.76 [0.45-1.28], P=0.30), major bleeding in 8.3% versus 8.0% (HR, 1.04 [0.81-1.33], P=0.78), and definite stent thrombosis in 0.5% versus 1.3% (HR, 0.42 [0.18-0.96], P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ST-segment-elevation MI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with radial access and receiving current recommended treatments with potent P2Y12-inhibitors rate of the composite of all-cause death, MI, or major bleeding was not lower in those randomized to receive bivalirudin as compared with heparin. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02311231.

Safety of the Deferral of Coronary Revascularization on the Basis of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements in Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients deferred from coronary revascularization on the basis of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements in stable angina pectoris (SAP) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS). BACKGROUND: Assessment of coronary stenosis severity with pressure guidewires is recommended to determine the need for myocardial revascularization. METHODS: The safety of deferral of coronary revascularization in the pooled per-protocol population (n = 4,486) of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) and iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome) randomized clinical trials was investigated. Patients were stratified according to revascularization decision making on the basis of iFR or FFR and to clinical presentation (SAP or ACS). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS: Coronary revascularization was deferred in 2,130 patients. Deferral was performed in 1,117 patients (50%) in the iFR group and 1,013 patients (45%) in the FFR group (p < 0.01). At 1 year, the MACE rate in the deferred population was similar between the iFR and FFR groups (4.12% vs. 4.05%; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 1.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 1.79; p = 0.60). A clinical presentation with ACS was associated with a higher MACE rate compared with SAP in deferred patients (5.91% vs. 3.64% in ACS and SAP, respectively; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 0.61 in favor of SAP; 95% confidence interval: 0.38 to 0.99; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, deferral of revascularization is equally safe with both iFR and FFR, with a low MACE rate of about 4%. Lesions were more frequently deferred when iFR was used to assess physiological significance. In deferred patients presenting with ACS, the event rate was significantly increased compared with SAP at 1 year.