AIMS: Adoption of fractional flow reserve (FFR) remains low (6-8%), partly because of the time, cost and potential inconvenience associated with vasodilator administration. The instantaneous wave-Free Ratio (iFR) is a pressure-only index of stenosis severity calculated without vasodilator drugs. Before outcome trials test iFR as a sole guide to revascularisation, we evaluate the merits of a hybrid iFR-FFR decision-making strategy for universal physiological assessment. METHODS AND RESULTS: Coronary pressure traces from 577 stenoses were analysed. iFR was calculated as the ratio between Pd and Pa in the resting diastolic wave-free window. A hybrid iFR-FFR strategy was evaluated, by allowing iFR to defer some stenoses (where negative predictive value is high) and treat others (where positive predictive value is high), with adenosine being given only to patients with iFR in between those values. For the most recent fixed FFR cut-off (0.8), an iFR of <0.86 could be used to confirm treatment (PPV of 92%), whilst an iFR value of >0.93 could be used to defer revascularisation (NPV of 91%). Limiting vasodilator drugs to cases with iFR values between 0.86 to 0.93 would obviate the need for vasodilator drugs in 57% of patients, whilst maintaining 95% agreement with an FFR-only strategy. If the 0.75-0.8 FFR grey zone is accounted for, vasodilator drug requirement would decrease by 76%. CONCLUSION: A hybrid iFR-FFR decision-making strategy for revascularisation could increase adoption of physiology-guided PCI, by more than halving the need for vasodilator administration, whilst maintaining high classification agreement with an FFR-only strategy.
AIMS: Adoption of fractional flow reserve (FFR) remains low (6-8%), partly because of the time, cost and potential inconvenience associated with vasodilator administration. The instantaneous wave-Free Ratio (iFR) is a pressure-only index of stenosis severity calculated without vasodilator drugs. Before outcome trials test iFR as a sole guide to revascularisation, we evaluate the merits of a hybrid iFR-FFR decision-making strategy for universal physiological assessment. METHODS AND RESULTS: Coronary pressure traces from 577 stenoses were analysed. iFR was calculated as the ratio between Pd and Pa in the resting diastolic wave-free window. A hybrid iFR-FFR strategy was evaluated, by allowing iFR to defer some stenoses (where negative predictive value is high) and treat others (where positive predictive value is high), with adenosine being given only to patients with iFR in between those values. For the most recent fixed FFR cut-off (0.8), an iFR of <0.86 could be used to confirm treatment (PPV of 92%), whilst an iFR value of >0.93 could be used to defer revascularisation (NPV of 91%). Limiting vasodilator drugs to cases with iFR values between 0.86 to 0.93 would obviate the need for vasodilator drugs in 57% of patients, whilst maintaining 95% agreement with an FFR-only strategy. If the 0.75-0.8 FFR grey zone is accounted for, vasodilator drug requirement would decrease by 76%. CONCLUSION: A hybrid iFR-FFR decision-making strategy for revascularisation could increase adoption of physiology-guided PCI, by more than halving the need for vasodilator administration, whilst maintaining high classification agreement with an FFR-only strategy.
Authors: Felipe Díez-Delhoyo; Enrique Gutiérrez-Ibañes; Gerard Loughlin; Ricardo Sanz-Ruiz; María Eugenia Vázquez-Álvarez; Fernando Sarnago-Cebada; Rocío Angulo-Llanos; Ana Casado-Plasencia; Jaime Elízaga; Francisco Fernández Avilés Diáz Journal: World J Cardiol Date: 2015-09-26
Authors: Nils P Johnson; Wenguang Li; Xi Chen; Barry Hennigan; Stuart Watkins; Colin Berry; William F Fearon; Keith G Oldroyd Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Ricardo Petraco; Rasha Al-Lamee; Matthias Gotberg; Andrew Sharp; Farrel Hellig; Sukhjinder S Nijjer; Mauro Echavarria-Pinto; Tim P van de Hoef; Sayan Sen; Nobuhiro Tanaka; Eric Van Belle; Waldemar Bojara; Kunihiro Sakoda; Martin Mates; Ciro Indolfi; Salvatore De Rosa; Christian J Vrints; Steven Haine; Hiroyoshi Yokoi; Flavio L Ribichini; Martjin Meuwissen; Hitoshi Matsuo; Luc Janssens; Ueno Katsumi; Carlo Di Mario; Javier Escaned; Jan Piek; Justin E Davies Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2014-07-21 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Colin Berry; David Corcoran; Barry Hennigan; Stuart Watkins; Jamie Layland; Keith G Oldroyd Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2015-06-02 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Sukhjinder S Nijjer; Sayan Sen; Ricardo Petraco; Rajesh Sachdeva; Florim Cuculi; Javier Escaned; Christopher Broyd; Nicolas Foin; Nearchos Hadjiloizou; Rodney A Foale; Iqbal Malik; Ghada W Mikhail; Amarjit S Sethi; Mahmud Al-Bustami; Raffi R Kaprielian; Masood A Khan; Christopher S Baker; Michael F Bellamy; Alun D Hughes; Jamil Mayet; Rajesh K Kharbanda; Carlo Di Mario; Justin E Davies Journal: Heart Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Ricardo Petraco; Hakim-Moulay Dehbi; James P Howard; Matthew J Shun-Shin; Sayan Sen; Sukhjinder S Nijjer; Jamil Mayet; Justin E Davies; Darrel P Francis Journal: Open Heart Date: 2018-01-20
Authors: Lorena Casadonte; Bart-Jan Verhoeff; Jan J Piek; Ed VanBavel; Jos A E Spaan; Maria Siebes Journal: Basic Res Cardiol Date: 2017-09-13 Impact factor: 17.165