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 .).

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).

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.