Use of the Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve in PCI.

BACKGROUND: Coronary revascularization guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is associated with better patient outcomes after the procedure than revascularization guided by angiography alone. It is unknown whether the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), an alternative measure that does not require the administration of adenosine, will offer benefits similar to those of FFR. METHODS: We randomly assigned 2492 patients with coronary artery disease, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo either iFR-guided or FFR-guided coronary revascularization. The primary end point was the 1-year risk of major adverse cardiac events, which were a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. The trial was designed to show the noninferiority of iFR to FFR, with a margin of 3.4 percentage points for the difference in risk. RESULTS: At 1 year, the primary end point had occurred in 78 of 1148 patients (6.8%) in the iFR group and in 83 of 1182 patients (7.0%) in the FFR group (difference in risk, -0.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.3 to 1.8; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.33; P=0.78). The risk of each component of the primary end point and of death from cardiovascular or noncardiovascular causes did not differ significantly between the groups. The number of patients who had adverse procedural symptoms and clinical signs was significantly lower in the iFR group than in the FFR group (39 patients [3.1%] vs. 385 patients [30.8%], P<0.001), and the median procedural time was significantly shorter (40.5 minutes vs. 45.0 minutes, P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Coronary revascularization guided by iFR was noninferior to revascularization guided by FFR with respect to the risk of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year. The rate of adverse procedural signs and symptoms was lower and the procedural time was shorter with iFR than with FFR. (Funded by Philips Volcano; DEFINE-FLAIR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02053038 .).

Contemporary prevalence of coronary artery disease in patients referred for heart valve surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing heart valve surgery are routinely evaluated for the presence of coronary artery disease (CAD). Currently, concomitant valve intervention and surgical revascularization is recommended when there is obstructive CAD. The aim of our study was to evaluate the prevalence of CAD, its treatment strategies, and their prognostic implications in a contemporary population of patients with valvular heart disease (VHD) referred for valve surgery (HVS). METHODS: In a multicenter registry, consecutive patients with formal indication for HVS referred for a preoperative routine invasive coronary angiogram (ICA) were analyzed. Baseline characteristics, CAD prevalence and revascularization patterns, as well as their impact on short and mid-term all-cause mortality, were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 1133 patients were included; most had aortic stenosis (69%) and obstructive CAD was present in 307 (27.1%). HVS was ultimately performed in 82.3%. In patients with CAD, 53.4% were revascularized. After a mean follow-up time of 29.06±18.46 months, all-cause mortality rate was 12.9%. In multivariate analysis, not having HVS (HR 6.845, 95% CI=4.281-10.947, P<0.001), obstructive CAD (HR 2.762, 95% CI=1.764-4.326, P<0.01), COPD (HR 2.043, 95% CI=1.014-4.197, P=0.022), and age (HR 1.030, 95% CI=1.009-1.063, P=0.047), were independent predictors of all-cause mortality. In patients with obstructive CAD who underwent HVS, revascularization was not significantly associated with survival (HR 2.127, 95% CI=0.0-4.494, P=0.048; log rank P=0.042). CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary cohort of patients with VHD and surgical indication, overall obstructive CAD prevalence was 27%. CAD presence and severity were associated with higher mortality. However, revascularization was not associated with a survival benefit, except in patients with left anterior descending artery disease.

Instantaneous wave-free ratio guided multivessel revascularisation during percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction: study protocol of the randomised controlled iMODERN trial.

INTRODUCTION: Recent randomised clinical trials showed benefit of non-culprit lesion revascularisation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. However, it remains unclear whether revascularisation should be performed at the index procedure or at a later stage. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) Guided Multivessel Revascularisation During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Myocardial Infarction trial is a multicentre, randomised controlled prospective open-label trial with blinded evaluation of endpoints. After successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), eligible STEMI patients with residual non-culprit lesions are randomised, to instantaneous wave-free ratio guided treatment of non-culprit lesions during the index procedure versus deferred cardiac MR-guided management within 4 days to 6 weeks. The primary endpoint of the study is the combined occurrence of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction and hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months follow-up. Clinical follow-up includes questionnaires at 3 months and outpatient visits at 6 months and 12 months after primary PCI. Furthermore, a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Permission to conduct this trial has been granted by the Medical Ethical Committee of the Amsterdam University Medical Centres (loc. VUmc, ID NL60107.029.16). The primary results of this trial will be shared in a main article and subgroup analyses or spin-off studies will be shared in secondary papers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03298659.

Impact of stress testing before percutaneous coronary intervention or medical management on outcomes of patients with persistent total occlusion after myocardial infarction: analysis from the occluded artery trial.

BACKGROUND: In the Occluded Artery Trial (OAT), 2,201 stable patients with an occluded infarct-related artery (IRA) were randomized to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or optimal medical treatment alone (MED). There was no difference in the primary end point of death, reinfarction, or congestive heart failure (CHF). We examined the prognostic impact of prerandomization stress testing. METHODS: Stress testing was required by protocol except for patients with single-vessel disease and akinesis/dyskinesis of the infarct zone. The presence of severe inducible ischemia was an exclusion criterion for OAT. We compared outcomes based on performance and results of stress testing. RESULTS: Five hundred ninety-eight (27%) patients (297 PCI, 301 MED) underwent stress testing. Radionuclide imaging or stress echocardiography was performed in 40%. Patients who had stress testing were younger (57 vs 59 years); had higher ejection fractions (49% vs 47%); and had lower rates of death (7.8% vs 13.2%), class IV CHF (2.4% vs 5.5%), and the primary end point (13.9% vs 18.9%) than patients without stress testing (all P < .01). Mild-moderate ischemia was observed in 40% of patients with stress testing and was not related to outcomes. Among patients with inducible ischemia, outcomes were similar for PCI and MED (all P > .10). CONCLUSIONS: In OAT, patients who underwent stress testing had better outcomes than patients who did not, likely related to differences in baseline characteristics. In patients managed with optimal medical therapy or PCI, mild-moderate inducible ischemia was not related to outcomes. The lack of benefit for PCI compared to MED alone was consistent regardless of whether stress testing was performed or inducible ischemia was present.

Clinical Events After Deferral of LAD Revascularization Following Physiological Coronary Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Physicians are not always comfortable deferring treatment of a stenosis in the left anterior descending (LAD) artery because of the perception that there is a high risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). The authors describe, using the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) trial, MACE rates when LAD lesions are deferred, guided by physiological assessment using fractional flow reserve (FFR) or the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to establish the safety of deferring treatment in the LAD using FFR or iFR within the DEFINE-FLAIR trial. METHODS: MACE rates at 1 year were compared between groups (iFR and FFR) in patients whose physiological assessment led to LAD lesions being deferred. MACE was defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and unplanned revascularization at 1 year. Patients, and staff performing follow-up, were blinded to whether the decision was made with FFR or iFR. Outcomes were adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS: A total of 872 patients had lesions deferred in the LAD (421 guided by FFR, 451 guided by iFR). The event rate with iFR was significantly lower than with FFR (2.44% vs. 5.26%; adjusted HR: 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22 to 0.95; p = 0.04). This was driven by significantly lower unplanned revascularization with iFR and numerically lower MI (unplanned revascularization: 2.22% iFR vs. 4.99% FFR; adjusted HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.93; p = 0.03; MI: 0.44% iFR vs. 2.14% FFR; adjusted HR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.07; p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: iFR-guided deferral appears to be safe for patients with LAD lesions. Patients in whom iFR-guided deferral was performed had statistically significantly lower event rates than those with FFR-guided deferral.

Comparison of Major Adverse Cardiac Events Between Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Strategy in Patients With or Without Type 2 Diabetes: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Invasive physiologic indices such as fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) are used in clinical practice. Nevertheless, comparative prognostic outcomes of iFR-guided and FFR-guided treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes have not yet been fully investigated. Objective: To compare 1-year clinical outcomes of iFR-guided or FFR-guided treatment in patients with and without diabetes in the Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularization (DEFINE-FLAIR) trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: The DEFINE-FLAIR trial is a multicenter, international, randomized, double-blinded trial that randomly assigned 2492 patients in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either iFR-guided or FFR-guided coronary revascularization. Patients were eligible for trial inclusion if they had intermediate coronary artery disease (40%-70% diameter stenosis) in at least 1 native coronary artery. Data were analyzed between January 2014 and December 2015. Interventions: According to the study protocol, iFR of 0.89 or less and FFR of 0.80 or less were used as criteria for revascularization. When iFR or FFR was higher than the prespecified threshold, revascularization was deferred. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization at 1 year. The incidence of MACE was compared according to the presence of diabetes in iFR-guided and FFR-guided groups. Results: Among the total trial population (2492 patients), 758 patients (30.4%) had diabetes. Mean age of the patients was 66 years, 76% were men (1868 of 2465), and 80% of patients presented with stable angina (1983 of 2465). In the nondiabetes population (68.5%; 1707 patients), iFR guidance was associated with a significantly higher rate of deferral of revascularization than the FFR-guided group (56.5% [n = 477 of 844] vs 46.6% [n = 402 of 863]; P < .001). However, it was not different between the 2 groups in the diabetes population (42.1% [n = 161 of 382] vs 47.1% [n = 177 of 376]; P = .15). At 1 year, the diabetes population showed a significantly higher rate of MACE than the nondiabetes population (8.6% vs 5.6%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.28-2.64; P < .001). However, there was no significant difference in MACE rates between iFR-guided and FFR-guided groups in both the diabetes (10.0% vs 7.2%; adjusted HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.78-2.25; P = .30) and nondiabetes population (4.7% vs 6.4%; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.51-1.35; P = .45) (interaction P = .25). Conclusions and Relevance: The diabetes population showed significantly higher risk of MACE than the nondiabetes population, even with the iFR-guided or FFR-guided treatment. The iFR-guided and FFR-guided treatment showed comparable risk of MACE and provided equal safety in selecting revascularization target among patients with diabetes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02053038.

Sex Differences in Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Revascularization Strategy.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate sex differences in procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR)- and fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided revascularization strategies. BACKGROUND: An iFR-guided strategy has shown a lower revascularization rate than an FFR-guided strategy, without differences in clinical outcomes. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate stenosis to guide Revascularization) study, in which 601 women and 1,891 men were randomized to iFR- or FFR-guided strategy. The primary endpoint was 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. RESULTS: Among the entire population, women had a lower number of functionally significant lesions per patient (0.31 ± 0.51 vs. 0.43 ± 0.59; p < 0.001) and less frequently underwent revascularization than men (42.1% vs. 53.1%; p < 0.001). There was no difference in mean iFR value according to sex (0.91 ± 0.09 vs. 0.91 ± 0.10; p = 0.442). However, the mean FFR value was lower in men than in women (0.83 ± 0.09 vs. 0.85 ± 0.10; p = 0.001). In men, an FFR-guided strategy was associated with a higher rate of revascularization than an iFR-guided strategy (57.1% vs. 49.3%; p = 0.001), but this difference was not observed in women (41.4% vs. 42.6%; p = 0.757). There was no difference in MACE rates between iFR- and FFR-guided strategies in both women (5.4% vs. 5.6%, adjusted hazard ratio: 1.10; 95% confidence interval: 0.50 to 2.43; p = 0.805) and men (6.6% vs. 7.0%, adjusted hazard ratio: 0.98; 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 1.46; p = 0.919). CONCLUSIONS: An FFR-guided strategy was associated with a higher rate of revascularization than iFR-guided strategy in men, but not in women. However, iFR- and FFR-guided strategies showed comparable clinical outcomes, regardless of sex. (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to guide Revascularization [DEFINE-FLAIR]; NCT02053038).

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.

The Multi-center Evaluation of the Accuracy of the Contrast MEdium INduced Pd/Pa RaTiO in Predicting FFR (MEMENTO-FFR) Study.

AIMS: Adenosine administration is needed for the achievement of maximal hyperaemia fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment. The objective was to test the accuracy of Pd/Pa ratio registered during submaximal hyperaemia induced by non-ionic contrast medium (contrast FFR [cFFR]) in predicting FFR and comparing it to the performance of resting Pd/Pa in a collaborative registry of 926 patients enrolled in 10 hospitals from four European countries (Italy, Spain, France and Portugal). METHODS AND RESULTS: Resting Pd/Pa, cFFR and FFR were measured in 1,026 coronary stenoses functionally evaluated using commercially available pressure wires. cFFR was obtained after intracoronary injection of contrast medium, while FFR was measured after administration of adenosine. Resting Pd/Pa and cFFR were significantly higher than FFR (0.93±0.05 vs. 0.87±0.08 vs. 0.84±0.08, p<0.001). A strong correlation and a close agreement at Bland-Altman analysis between cFFR and FFR were observed (r=0.90, p<0.001 and 95% CI of disagreement: from -0.042 to 0.11). ROC curve analysis showed an excellent accuracy (89%) of the cFFR cut-off of ≤0.85 in predicting an FFR value ≤0.80 (AUC 0.95 [95% CI: 0.94-0.96]), significantly better than that observed using resting Pd/Pa (AUC: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.88-0.91; p<0.001). A cFFR/FFR hybrid approach showed a significantly lower number of lesions requiring adenosine than a resting Pd/Pa/FFR hybrid approach (22% vs. 44%, p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: cFFR is accurate in predicting the functional significance of coronary stenosis. This could allow limiting the use of adenosine to obtain FFR to a minority of stenoses with considerable savings of time and costs.

Continuum of Vasodilator Stress From Rest to Contrast Medium to Adenosine Hyperemia for Fractional Flow Reserve Assessment.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared the diagnostic performance with adenosine-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) ≤0.8 of contrast-based FFR (cFFR), resting distal pressure (Pd)/aortic pressure (Pa), and the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). BACKGROUND: FFR objectively identifies lesions that benefit from medical therapy versus revascularization. However, FFR requires maximal vasodilation, usually achieved with adenosine. Radiographic contrast injection causes submaximal coronary hyperemia. Therefore, intracoronary contrast could provide an easy and inexpensive tool for predicting FFR. METHODS: We recruited patients undergoing routine FFR assessment and made paired, repeated measurements of all physiology metrics (Pd/Pa, iFR, cFFR, and FFR). Contrast medium and dose were per local practice, as was the dose of intracoronary adenosine. Operators were encouraged to perform both intracoronary and intravenous adenosine assessments and a final drift check to assess wire calibration. A central core lab analyzed blinded pressure tracings in a standardized fashion. RESULTS: A total of 763 subjects were enrolled from 12 international centers. Contrast volume was 8 ± 2 ml per measurement, and 8 different contrast media were used. Repeated measurements of each metric showed a bias <0.005, but a lower SD (less variability) for cFFR than resting indexes. Although Pd/Pa and iFR demonstrated equivalent performance against FFR ≤0.8 (78.5% vs. 79.9% accuracy; p = 0.78; area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve: 0.875 vs. 0.881; p = 0.35), cFFR improved both metrics (85.8% accuracy and 0.930 area; p < 0.001 for each) with an optimal binary threshold of 0.83. A hybrid decision-making strategy using cFFR required adenosine less often than when based on either Pd/Pa or iFR. CONCLUSIONS: cFFR provides diagnostic performance superior to that of Pd/Pa or iFR for predicting FFR. For clinical scenarios or health care systems in which adenosine is contraindicated or prohibitively expensive, cFFR offers a universal technique to simplify invasive coronary physiological assessments. Yet FFR remains the reference standard for diagnostic certainty as even cFFR reached only ∼85% agreement.